Re: Add a greedy join search algorithm to handle large join problems

From: lakshmi <lakshmigcdac(at)gmail(dot)com>
To: Tomas Vondra <tomas(at)vondra(dot)me>
Cc: Chengpeng Yan <chengpeng_yan(at)outlook(dot)com>, Pavel Stehule <pavel(dot)stehule(at)gmail(dot)com>, John Naylor <johncnaylorls(at)gmail(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: 2026-03-02 10:27:12
Message-ID: CAEvyyThu3W12mwby-Ocgg=MruEUwuFDb-X=LptTGnNFsbUY3Rw@mail.gmail.com
Views: Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On Mon, Feb 16, 2026 at 4:56 PM lakshmi <lakshmigcdac(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:

> Hi Tomas,
>
> Thank you for the clarification. You’re right that the synthetic test
> doesn’t strongly constrain join order and, with the default
> join_collapse_limit , the DP comparison was limited.
>
> I’m now preparing follow-up tests using selected JOB queries and adjusted
> planner settings to provide a fair and more realistic comparison. I’ll
> share the results soon.
>

Hi Tomas,

Following up on my previous message, I ran some additional tests
using a few selected JOB queries with DP, GEQO and GOO under the same
planner settings.

Configuration used:

- join_collapse_limit = 100
- from_collapse_limit = 100
- max_parallel_workers_per_gather = 0
- PostgreSQL 19devel with the GOO v5 patch

Here is a summary of the results:

Query DP Plan(ms) DP Exec(ms) GEQO Plan(ms) GEQO Exec(ms) GOO
>> Plan(ms) GOO Exec(ms)
>>
>> -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>> 12b 4.97 0.16 54.57 0.11 4.18
>> 0.12
>> 24a 88.94 0.21 67.10 0.12 6.26
>> 0.12
>> 26b 68.58 0.20 44.44 0.10 3.90
>> 0.07
>> 29a 1903.9 0.24 14.73 0.22 25.47
>> 0.26
>> 33c 163.25 0.28 52.93 0.18 3.98
>> 0.07
>
>
Overall, GOO consistently shows much lower planning time than DP, and
is comparable to GEQO on larger join queries. Execution times are generally
similar across the planners.

Regards,
Lakshmi

In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Álvaro Herrera 2026-03-02 10:34:11 Re: Reject ADD CONSTRAINT NOT NULL if name mismatches existing domain not-null constraint
Previous Message shveta malik 2026-03-02 10:18:14 Re: Skipping schema changes in publication