Re: [PATCH] Equivalence Class Filters

On 08/12/15 05:27, David G. Johnston wrote:
> On Mon, Dec 7, 2015 at 8:35 AM, Jim Nasby <Jim(dot)Nasby(at)bluetreble(dot)com
> <mailto:Jim(dot)Nasby(at)bluetreble(dot)com>>wrote:
>
> On 12/6/15 10:38 AM, Tom Lane wrote:
>
> I said "in most cases". You can find example cases to support
> almost any
> weird planner optimization no matter how expensive and
> single-purpose;
> but that is the wrong way to think about it. What you have to
> think about
> is average cases, and in particular, not putting a drag on
> planning time
> in cases where no benefit ensues. We're not committing any
> patches that
> give one uncommon case an 1100X speedup by penalizing every
> other query 10%,
> or even 1%; especially not when there may be other ways to fix it.
>
>
> This is a problem that seriously hurts Postgres in data
> warehousing applications. We can't keep ignoring optimizations
> that provide even as little as 10% execution improvements for 10x
> worse planner performance, because in a warehouse it's next to
> impossible for planning time to matter.
>
> Obviously it'd be great if there was a fast, easy way to figure
> out whether a query would be expensive enough to go the whole 9
> yards on planning it but at this point I suspect a simple GUC
> would be a big improvement.
>
>
> Something like "enable_equivalencefilters" but that defaults to false
> unlike every one existing "enable_*" GUC?
>
> ​It would be a lot more user-friendly to have something along the
> lines of "planner_mode (text)" with labels like "star, transactional,
> bulk_load, etc..." because I suspect there are other things we'd want
> to add if we start identifying queries by their type/usage and
> optimize accordingly. Having the knobs available is necessary but
> putting on a façade would make the user more straight-forward for the
> common cases.
>
> David J.
>
How about:

planning_time_base 10 # Default effort, may be increased or decreased
as required - must be at least 1
planning_time_XXXX 0 # By default, planner makes no (or minimal)
effort to optimise for feature XXXX

So for some people, adjusting planning_time_base may be sufficient - but
for more specialised cases, people can tell the planner to consider
expending more effort.

Cheers,
Gavin