From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
---|---|
To: | Thomas Kellerer <spam_eater(at)gmx(dot)net> |
Cc: | pgsql-performance(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: Bloom index cost model seems to be wrong |
Date: | 2019-02-12 15:41:58 |
Message-ID: | 2126.1549986118@sss.pgh.pa.us |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers pgsql-performance |
Thomas Kellerer <spam_eater(at)gmx(dot)net> writes:
> The bloom index is only used if either Seq Scan is disabled or if the random_page_cost is set to 1 (anything about 1 triggers a Seq Scan on my Windows laptop).
Hm. blcostestimate is using the default cost calculation, except for
/* We have to visit all index tuples anyway */
costs.numIndexTuples = index->tuples;
which essentially tells genericcostestimate to assume that every index
tuple will be visited. This obviously is going to increase the cost
estimate; maybe there's something wrong with that?
I notice that the bloom regression test script is only testing queries
where it forces the choice of plan type, so it really doesn't prove
anything about whether the cost estimates are sane.
regards, tom lane
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Greg Stark | 2019-02-12 16:00:51 | Should we still have old release notes in docs? |
Previous Message | Alvaro Herrera | 2019-02-12 15:26:22 | Re: use Getopt::Long for catalog scripts |
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Jeff Janes | 2019-02-12 16:58:08 | Re: Bloom index cost model seems to be wrong |
Previous Message | Thomas Kellerer | 2019-02-12 15:08:25 | Bloom index cost model seems to be wrong |