|From:||Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>|
|To:||Pavel Stehule <pavel(dot)stehule(at)gmail(dot)com>|
|Cc:||PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org>, Christophe Pettus <xof(at)thebuild(dot)com>, David Rowley <dgrowleyml(at)gmail(dot)com>|
|Subject:||Re: Row estimates for empty tables|
|Views:||Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email|
Pavel Stehule <pavel(dot)stehule(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
> I am sending a patch that is years used in GoodData.
I'm quite unexcited about that. I'd be the first to agree that the
ten-pages estimate is a hack, but it's not an improvement to ask users
to think of a better value ... especially not as a one-size-fits-
all-relations GUC setting.
I did have an idea that I think is better than my previous one:
rather than lying about the value of relpages, let's represent the
case where we don't know the tuple density by setting reltuples = -1
initially. This leads to a patch that's a good bit more invasive than
the quick-hack solution, but I think it's a lot cleaner on the whole.
A possible objection is that this changes the FDW API slightly, as
GetForeignRelSize callbacks now need to deal with rel->tuples possibly
being -1. We could avoid an API break if we made plancat.c clamp
that value to zero; but then FDWs still couldn't tell the difference
between the "empty" and "never analyzed" cases, and I think this is
just as much of an issue for them as for the core code.
I'll add this to the upcoming CF.
regards, tom lane
|Next Message||harish supare||2020-08-24 10:06:06||Substitute Variable in select query|
|Previous Message||Paul Förster||2020-08-23 15:03:35||Re: has_database_privilege is true?|
|Next Message||Peter Smith||2020-08-24 02:18:33||Re: proposal - function string_to_table|
|Previous Message||Andrey M. Borodin||2020-08-23 09:39:38||Re: Yet another fast GiST build (typo)|