| From: | Andrey Lepikhov <a(dot)lepikhov(at)postgrespro(dot)ru> |
|---|---|
| To: | Tomas Vondra <tomas(dot)vondra(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>, Teodor Sigaev <teodor(at)sigaev(dot)ru> |
| Cc: | Tomas Vondra <tomas(dot)vondra(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, PostgreSQL Developers <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: POC: GROUP BY optimization |
| Date: | 2022-01-24 05:02:03 |
| Message-ID: | dc4e686b-d8ed-3ade-3c29-24f87436c6f7@postgrespro.ru |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 22/1/2022 01:34, Tomas Vondra wrote:
> The other thing we could do is reduce the coefficient gradually - so
> it'd be 1.5 for the first pathkey, then 1.25 for the next one, and so
> on. But it seems somewhat arbitrary (I certainly don't have some sound
> theoretical justification ...).
I think, it hasn't a reason to increase complexity without any theory at
the bottom. Simple solution allows to realize problems much faster, if
they arise.
> ... I've skipped the path_save
> removal in planner.c, because that seems incorrect - if there are
> multiple pathkeys, we must start with the original path, not the
> modified one we built in the last iteration. Or am I missing something
You are right, I misunderstood the idea of path_save variable.
--
regards,
Andrey Lepikhov
Postgres Professional
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | torikoshia | 2022-01-24 05:33:05 | Re: RFC: Logging plan of the running query |
| Previous Message | Greg Nancarrow | 2022-01-24 04:59:27 | Re: row filtering for logical replication |