From: | Andy Fan <zhihuifan1213(at)163(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Andrei Lepikhov <a(dot)lepikhov(at)postgrespro(dot)ru> |
Cc: | David Rowley <dgrowleyml(at)gmail(dot)com>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>, pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: a wrong index choose when statistics is out of date |
Date: | 2024-03-13 07:39:07 |
Message-ID: | 87jzm68tjv.fsf@163.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
>
> Having had the same problem for a long time, I've made an attempt and
> invented a patch that probes an index to determine whether the estimated
> constant is within statistics' scope.
> I remember David's remark on the overhead problem, but I don't argue it
> here. This patch is on the table to have one more solution sketch for
> further discussion.
I think the following code will be really horrendous on peformance
aspect, think about the cases where we have thousands of tuples.
+ index_rescan(index_scan, scankeys, 1, NULL, 0);
+ while (index_getnext_tid(index_scan, ForwardScanDirection) != NULL)
+ {
+ ntuples++;
+ }
+
> Also, Andy, if you have a specific problem with index choosing, you can
> try a tiny option that makes the index-picking technique less dependent
> on the ordering of index lists [1].
thanks, index choosing issue already not the only issue I want to address now.
You said the my patch was kind of lucky to work at [1], have you figure
out an example to prove that?
[1]
https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/701d2097-2c5b-41e2-8629-734e3c8ba613%40postgrespro.ru
--
Best Regards
Andy Fan
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Peter Eisentraut | 2024-03-13 07:40:42 | Re: meson vs tarballs |
Previous Message | Peter Eisentraut | 2024-03-13 07:38:28 | Re: meson: Specify -Wformat as a common warning flag for extensions |