Re: Getting sorted data from foreign server

On Tue, Oct 27, 2015 at 5:26 AM, Ashutosh Bapat <
ashutosh(dot)bapat(at)enterprisedb(dot)com> wrote:
>
>
>
> On Fri, Oct 23, 2015 at 2:43 AM, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>
wrote:
>>
>> On Wed, Oct 21, 2015 at 5:23 AM, Ashutosh Bapat
>> <ashutosh(dot)bapat(at)enterprisedb(dot)com> wrote:
>> > Increasing the sorting cost factor (when use_remote_estimates = false)
from
>> > 1.1 to 1.2 makes the difference disappear.
>> >
>> > Since the startup costs for postgres_fdw are large portion of total
cost,
>> > extra 10% of rest of the cost is comparable to 1% fuzzy limit. IMO, we
>> > shouldn't bother too much about it as the path costs are not much
different.
>>
>> My feeling is that cranking the sorting cost factor up to 20-25% would
>> be a good idea, just so we have less unnecessary plan churn. I dunno
>> if sorting always costs that much, but if a 10% cost overhead is
>> really 1% because it only applies to a fraction of the cost, I don't
>> think that's good. The whole point was to pick something large enough
>> that we wouldn't take the sorted path unless we will benefit from the
>> sort, and clearly that's not what happened here.
>>
>
> PFA patch with the default multiplication factor for sort bumped up to
1.2.
>

+/* If no remote estimates, assume a sort costs 10% extra */
+#define DEFAULT_FDW_SORT_MULTIPLIER 1.2

The above comment should not be 20%?

Regards,

--
Fabrízio de Royes Mello
Consultoria/Coaching PostgreSQL
>> Timbira: http://www.timbira.com.br
>> Blog: http://fabriziomello.github.io
>> Linkedin: http://br.linkedin.com/in/fabriziomello
>> Twitter: http://twitter.com/fabriziomello
>> Github: http://github.com/fabriziomello