Re: Re: OLAP/reporting queries fall into nested loops over seq scans or other horrible planner choices

From: Gunther <raj(at)gusw(dot)net>
To: pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: Re: OLAP/reporting queries fall into nested loops over seq scans or other horrible planner choices
Date: 2017-11-03 15:13:35
Message-ID: a6cc0c0a-9047-adf4-c07a-74ee42a25536@gusw.net
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-performance

On 11/3/2017 10:55, legrand legrand wrote:
> To limit NL usage, wouldn't a modified set of Planner Cost Constants
> https://www.postgresql.org/docs/current/static/runtime-config-query.html
> <https://www.postgresql.org/docs/current/static/runtime-config-query.html>
>
> seq_page_cost
> random_page_cost
> cpu_tuple_cost
> cpu_index_tuple_cost
> cpu_operator_cost
>
> be more hash join freindly (as Oracle' optimizer_index_cost_adj )?
>
I twiddled with some of these and could nudge it toward a Sort Merge
instead NL. But it's hit or miss.

May be there should be a tool which you can run periodically which will
test out the installation to see how IO, CPU, and memory performs. Or,
again, these statistics should be collected during normal operation so
that nobody needs to guess them or test them in complex procedures. As
the system runs, it should sample the seq_page_cost and random_page_cost
(noticing that it has a SSD or HDD) and it should see how much disk read
is from cache and how much goes out to disk. Why isn't the executor of
queries the best person to ask for these cost constants?

regards,
-Gunther

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-performance by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Dave Nicponski 2017-11-03 15:56:45 Re: Re: OLAP/reporting queries fall into nested loops over seq scans or other horrible planner choices
Previous Message legrand legrand 2017-11-03 14:55:45 Re: OLAP/reporting queries fall into nested loops over seq scans or other horrible planner choices