| From: | Tomas Vondra <tomas(at)vondra(dot)me> |
|---|---|
| To: | Pavel Stehule <pavel(dot)stehule(at)gmail(dot)com>, John Naylor <johncnaylorls(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Chengpeng Yan <chengpeng_yan(at)outlook(dot)com>, "pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Add a greedy join search algorithm to handle large join problems |
| Date: | 2025-12-11 17:07:54 |
| Message-ID: | 982de4a4-71b6-4d1d-afe2-35b1c5d43529@vondra.me |
| Views: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 12/11/25 07:12, Pavel Stehule wrote:
>
>
> čt 11. 12. 2025 v 3:53 odesílatel John Naylor <johncnaylorls(at)gmail(dot)com
> <mailto:johncnaylorls(at)gmail(dot)com>> napsal:
>
> On Wed, Dec 10, 2025 at 5:20 PM Tomas Vondra <tomas(at)vondra(dot)me
> <mailto:tomas(at)vondra(dot)me>> wrote:
> > I did however notice an interesting thing - running EXPLAIN on the 99
> > queries (for 3 scales and 0/4 workers, so 6x 99) took this much time:
> >
> > master: 8s
> > master/geqo: 20s
> > master/goo: 5s
>
> > It's nice that "goo" seems to be faster than "geqo" - assuming the
> plans
> > are comparable or better. But it surprised me switching to geqo
> makes it
> > slower than master. That goes against my intuition that geqo is
> meant to
> > be cheaper/faster join order planning. But maybe I'm missing
> something.
>
> Yeah, that was surprising. It seems that geqo has a large overhead, so
> it takes a larger join problem for the asymptotic behavior to win over
> exhaustive search.
>
>
> If I understand correctly to design - geqo should be slower for any
> queries with smaller complexity. The question is how many queries in the
> tested model are really complex.
>
Depends on what you mean by "really complex". TPC-DS queries are not
trivial, but the complexity may not be in the number of joins.
Of course, setting geqo_threshold to 2 may be too aggressive. Not sure.
regards
--
Tomas Vondra
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Greg Burd | 2025-12-11 17:18:15 | Re: [PATCH] Fix ARM64/MSVC atomic memory ordering issues on Win11 by adding explicit DMB barriers |
| Previous Message | Álvaro Herrera | 2025-12-11 16:56:13 | Re: Fix and improve allocation formulas |