Re: Shouldn't we have a way to avoid "risky" plans?

25.03.11 16:12, Tom Lane написав(ла):
> Vitalii Tymchyshyn<tivv00(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
>
>> Why so? I simply change cost estimation functions. This won't change
>> number of pathes.
> If you have multiple figures of merit, that means you have to keep more
> paths, with consequent slowdown when it comes to choosing which path to
> use at higher join levels.
>
> As an example, we used to keep only the paths with best total cost.
> When we started to optimize LIMIT, we had to keep around paths with best
> startup cost too, in case that made for the best combined result at a
> higher join level. If you're going to consider "risk" while choosing
> paths, that means you'll start keeping paths you would have discarded
> before, while not necessarily getting rid of any other paths. The only
> way to avoid that would be to have a completely brain-dead notion of
> risk that wasn't affected by how the path is used at a higher join
> level, and I'm pretty sure that that wouldn't solve anybody's problem.
>
> Any significant expansion of the planner's fundamental cost model *will*
> make it slower. By a lot. Rather than going into this with fantasies
> of "it won't cost anything", you should be worrying about how to keep
> the speed penalty to factor-of-two rather than factor-of-ten.
But I am not talking about model change, it's more like formula change.
Introducing limit added one variable where outer plan could influence
inner plan selection.
But I am talking simply about cost calculation for given node. Now cost
is based on statistical expected value, the proposal is (something like)
to take maximum cost on n% probability range near expected value.
This, of course, will make calculations slower, but won't add any degree
of freedom to calculations.

Best regards, Vitalii Tymchyshyn