| From: | Ashutosh Bapat <ashutosh(dot)bapat(dot)oss(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | arne(dot)roland(at)malkut(dot)net |
| Cc: | Jakub Wartak <jakub(dot)wartak(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>, Tomas Vondra <tomas(dot)vondra(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>, Zhihong Yu <zyu(at)yugabyte(dot)com>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org>, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Julien Rouhaud <rjuju123(at)gmail(dot)com>, Etsuro Fujita <etsuro(dot)fujita(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Subject: | Re: apply_scanjoin_target_to_paths and partitionwise join |
| Date: | 2024-06-05 10:57:13 |
| Message-ID: | CAExHW5sqvBHETPLb+c2FSjGuFBL_KP8aHOZ0kb+hq_OKG-A5cA@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Tue, May 28, 2024 at 7:13 AM <arne(dot)roland(at)malkut(dot)net> wrote:
> 1. I think the order by pk frac limit plans had just to similar
> performance behaviour for me to bother.
> But afaics the main point of your proposal is not related to frac plans
> at all.
>
Right.
> 2. We can't expect the optimizers to simply yield better results by
> being given more options to be wrong. (Let me give a simple example:
This patch makes our lack of cross table cross column statistics worse.
> We give it more opportunity to pick something horrible.
>
I don't see the connection between cross column statistics and this bug I
am fixing. Can you please elaborate?
> 3. I dislike, that this patch makes much harder to debug, why no
> partitionwise join is chosen.
>
Can you please elaborate more? How does my change make debugging harder?
--
Best Wishes,
Ashutosh Bapat
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Ashutosh Bapat | 2024-06-05 11:26:10 | Re: meson and check-tests |
| Previous Message | Andrey M. Borodin | 2024-06-05 10:19:41 | Re: Revive num_dead_tuples column of pg_stat_progress_vacuum |