| From: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de>, Jakub Wartak <jakub(dot)wartak(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>, Simon Riggs <simon(dot)riggs(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>, Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)alvh(dot)no-ip(dot)org>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Damage control for planner's get_actual_variable_endpoint() runaway |
| Date: | 2022-11-21 17:39:18 |
| Message-ID: | CA+TgmoaJJU2dYt_Qg5r0pEMZ_q2zVoRRCvJDREJ_S6b=HfTeew@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Mon, Nov 21, 2022 at 12:38 PM Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
> Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> writes:
> > This can't quite be right - isn't this only applying the limit if we found a
> > visible tuple?
>
> What it's restricting is the number of heap page fetches, which
> might be good enough. We don't have a lot of visibility here
> into how many index pages were scanned before returning the next
> not-dead index entry, so I'm not sure how hard it'd be to do better.
Oh. That's really sad. Because I think the whole problem here is that
the number of dead index entries can be huge.
--
Robert Haas
EDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tom Lane | 2022-11-21 17:45:55 | Re: Damage control for planner's get_actual_variable_endpoint() runaway |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2022-11-21 17:37:59 | Re: Damage control for planner's get_actual_variable_endpoint() runaway |