|From:||Etsuro Fujita <fujita(dot)etsuro(at)lab(dot)ntt(dot)co(dot)jp>|
|To:||Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>|
|Cc:||Andrew Gierth <andrew(at)tao11(dot)riddles(dot)org(dot)uk>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org|
|Subject:||Re: Problems with plan estimates in postgres_fdw|
|Views:||Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox|
(2018/10/05 19:15), Etsuro Fujita wrote:
> (2018/08/02 23:41), Tom Lane wrote:
>> Andrew Gierth<andrew(at)tao11(dot)riddles(dot)org(dot)uk> writes:
>>> [ postgres_fdw is not smart about exploiting fast-start plans ]
>> Yeah, that's basically not accounted for at all in the current design.
>>> One possibility: would it be worth adding an option to EXPLAIN that
>>> makes it assume cursor_tuple_fraction?
>> [ handwaving ahead ]
>> I wonder whether it could be done without destroying postgres_fdw's
>> support for old servers, by instead including a LIMIT in the query sent
>> for explaining. The trick would be to know what value to put as the
>> limit, though. It'd be easy to do if we were willing to explain the query
>> twice (the second time with a limit chosen as a fraction of the rowcount
>> seen the first time), but man that's an expensive solution.
>> Another component of any real fix here would be to issue "SET
>> cursor_tuple_fraction" before opening the execution cursor, so as to
>> ensure that we actually get an appropriate plan on the remote side.
>> If we could tell whether there's going to be any use in fast-start plans,
>> it might make sense to build two scan paths for a foreign table, one
>> on a full-table scan and one based on EXPLAIN ... LIMIT 1. This still
>> means two explain requests, which is why I'm not thrilled about doing it
>> unless there's a high probability of the extra explain being useful.
> Agreed, but ISTM that to address the original issue, it would be enough
> to jsut add LIMIT (or ORDER BY LIMIT) pushdown to postgres_fdw based on
> the upper-planner-pathification work.
Will work on it unless somebody else wants to.
|Next Message||Michael Paquier||2018-10-09 05:59:00||Re: out-of-order XID insertion in KnownAssignedXids|
|Previous Message||Michael Paquier||2018-10-09 05:38:35||Re: [HACKERS] Optional message to user when terminating/cancelling backend|