From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
---|---|
To: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
Cc: | Kouhei Kaigai <kaigai(at)ak(dot)jp(dot)nec(dot)com>, Ashutosh Bapat <ashutosh(dot)bapat(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>, Thom Brown <thom(at)linux(dot)com>, Shigeru Hanada <shigeru(dot)hanada(at)gmail(dot)com>, "pgsql-hackers(at)postgreSQL(dot)org" <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: Custom/Foreign-Join-APIs (Re: [v9.5] Custom Plan API) |
Date: | 2015-03-17 15:32:24 |
Message-ID: | 6745.1426606344@sss.pgh.pa.us |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
> On Tue, Mar 17, 2015 at 10:11 AM, Kouhei Kaigai <kaigai(at)ak(dot)jp(dot)nec(dot)com> wrote:
>> It might be an idea if foreign-scan path is not wiped out regardless of the
>> estimated cost, we will be able to construct an entirely remote-join path
>> even if intermediation path is expensive than local join.
>> A problem is, how to distinct these special paths from usual paths that are
>> eliminated on the previous stage once its path is more expensive.
> Any solution that is based on not eliminating paths that would
> otherwise be discarded based on cost seems to me to be unlikely to be
> feasible. We can't complicate the core path-cost-comparison stuff for
> the convenience of FDW or custom-scan pushdown.
I concur. I'm not even so worried about the cost of add_path as such;
the real problem with not discarding paths as aggressively as possible
is that it will result in a combinatorial explosion in the number of
path combinations that have to be examined at higher join levels.
regards, tom lane
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Robert Haas | 2015-03-17 15:50:28 | Re: PATCH: pgbench - merging transaction logs |
Previous Message | Fabien COELHO | 2015-03-17 15:27:25 | Re: PATCH: pgbench - merging transaction logs |