From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
---|---|
To: | Sam Ross <elliptic(at)gmail(dot)com> |
Cc: | pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: Estimated rows question |
Date: | 2012-09-02 00:47:41 |
Message-ID: | 6832.1346546861@sss.pgh.pa.us |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-general pgsql-hackers |
[ sorry for slow response, but I'd not gotten time to think about this... ]
Sam Ross <elliptic(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
> I was wondering why it seems that the query planner can't "see", based
> on the histograms, that two join-columns have a very small
> intersection, and adjust its row estimation accordingly.
The reason why not is that eqjoinsel() doesn't take any such
consideration into account. It's possible that it'd be a good idea
to teach it to do so. I'm not entirely convinced though. It would
add a fair amount of expense to that function, as well as adding
some possibly shaky assumptions, and I'm not sure how often we'd
get a usefully-better estimate in practice. OTOH, there are a lot
of shaky assumptions in eqjoinsel() already, and we did decide this
was worth worrying about in mergejoin cost estimation.
Do you want to try it and submit a patch for testing?
regards, tom lane
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Johan Nel | 2012-09-02 06:32:26 | Re: "Too far out of the mainstream" |
Previous Message | Bruce Momjian | 2012-09-01 21:14:39 | Re: [GENERAL] Date conversion using day of week |
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Robert Haas | 2012-09-02 05:06:28 | Re: Yet another failure mode in pg_upgrade |
Previous Message | Bruce Momjian | 2012-09-01 22:26:55 | Re: Getting rid of cheap-startup-cost paths earlier |