Re: More thoughts about planner's cost estimates

On Thu, Jun 01, 2006 at 03:15:09PM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> These would all be nice things to know, but I'm afraid it's pie in the
> sky. We have no reasonable way to get those numbers. (And if we could
> get them, there would be another set of problems, namely plan instability:
> the planner's choices would become very difficult to reproduce.)

Speaking of plan instability, something that's badly needed is the
ability to steer away from query plans that *might* be the most optimal,
but also will fail horribly should the cost estimates be wrong. People
generally don't care about getting the absolutely most optimal plan;
they do care about NOT getting a plan that's horribly bad. One possible
way to do this would be to have the estimator calculate a worst-case
cost to go along with the best case cost, or maybe even 3 numbers:
ideal, what we think will happen, and worst-case. I know that index
scans already have that information, at least in the form of cost for a
plan with 0 correlation and one with perfect correlation.

Does anyone have any experience developing genetic algorithms? I think
coming up with cost estimators might be an ideal use for that
technology...
--
Jim C. Nasby, Sr. Engineering Consultant jnasby(at)pervasive(dot)com
Pervasive Software http://pervasive.com work: 512-231-6117
vcard: http://jim.nasby.net/pervasive.vcf cell: 512-569-9461