From: | David Conlin <dc345(at)cantab(dot)net> |
---|---|
To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
Cc: | pgsql-performance(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: Change in CTE treatment in query plans? |
Date: | 2019-10-21 13:22:01 |
Message-ID: | a2e0867f-ef98-471a-c2bf-2184d304f76c@cantab.net |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-performance |
Hi Tom -
Thanks so much for getting back to me.
I didn't realise that the costs of init/sub plans would be spread across
the call sites - I had (stupidly) assumed that each call site would
include the full cost.
Having taken a couple of days to go back over the problems I was seeing,
you were absolutely right - it was all to do with multiple call sites -
the postgres version was just a red herring.
Thanks for your help & all the best,
Dave
On 17/10/2019 10:04, Tom Lane wrote:
> David Conlin <dc345(at)cantab(dot)net> writes:
>> Does anyone know if there's been a change in the way values for CTEs are
>> displayed in query plans?
> Offhand I don't recall any such changes, nor does a cursory look
> through explain.c find anything promising.
>
> If you're concerned with a multiply-referenced CTE, one possibility
> for funny results is that the blame for its execution cost could be
> spread across the multiple call sites. The same can happen with
> initplans/subplans. But I'm just guessing; you didn't show any
> concrete examples so it's hard to be definite.
>
> regards, tom lane
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Joao Junior | 2019-10-22 12:28:31 | max_connections |
Previous Message | Justin Pryzby | 2019-10-18 16:15:02 | Re: Can you please tell us how set this prefetch attribute in following lines. |