| From: | Laurenz Albe <laurenz(dot)albe(at)cybertec(dot)at> |
|---|---|
| To: | Alena Rybakina <a(dot)rybakina(at)postgrespro(dot)ru> |
| Cc: | David Rowley <dgrowleyml(at)gmail(dot)com>, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Heikki Linnakangas <hlinnaka(at)iki(dot)fi>, Peter Geoghegan <pg(at)bowt(dot)ie>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: On disable_cost |
| Date: | 2024-10-02 19:08:03 |
| Message-ID: | 7f6f41796b8d110dc1ef6e7898ea35eab9345144.camel@cybertec.at |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Wed, 2024-10-02 at 21:31 +0300, Alena Rybakina wrote:
> Honestly, I like this patch. Before this patch, when disabling any algorithm
> in the optimizer, the cost increased significantly and I’m not sure that this
> was a reliable solution due to the fact that the cost even without disabling
> can be greatly increased because of the high cardinality, for example.
>
> Right there, the mechanism is simple and more honest in my opinion - we simply
> count the number of disabled nodes and discard the paths with the largest
> number of them.
I have no issue with this way of handling disabled plan nodes, I only
complained about the verbosity of the EXPLAIN output.
I don't want to see disabled nodes propagated all the way up the tree,
and I would like the output suppressed by default.
Yours,
Laurenz Albe
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Alena Rybakina | 2024-10-02 19:23:28 | Re: On disable_cost |
| Previous Message | Laurenz Albe | 2024-10-02 19:05:18 | Re: On disable_cost |