| 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: | 2026-02-16 10:44:16 |
| Message-ID: | CAEvyyTigh2eB9hGirHzAC9j3SrMW1otMNxm7yHYOU3xs8x+FLA@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Hi Tomas,
Thank you for the question.
The 15-table and 20-table results I shared were obtained using a synthetic
join workload designed to stress join-order planning and measure
planning-time scaling, rather than a JOB or TPC-H query.
Each query is essentially a left-deep chain of equality joins over simple
tables. For reference, the structure is equivalent to:
15-table join
SELECT count(*)
FROM t1
JOIN t2 ON t1.id = t2.id
JOIN t3 ON t2.id = t3.id
...
JOIN t15 ON t14.id = t15.id;
20-table join
SELECT count(*)
FROM t1
JOIN t2 ON t1.id = t2.id
JOIN t3 ON t2.id = t3.id
...
JOIN t20 ON t19.id = t20.id;
Regarding planner settings:
-geqo_threshold was set to:
a high value (e.g., 100) to force DP
a low value (e.g., 2) to allow GEQO/GOO
-enable_goo_join_search was toggled on/off depending on the comparison
being measured.
-Other planner parameters, including join_collapse_limit, were left at
their default values.
So these experiments mainly evaluate planning-time scaling and basic plan
sanity on a controlled join graph, rather than realistic workload plan
quality.
I’m currently preparing additional tests using selected JOB queries to
provide more meaningful plan-quality comparisons and will share those
results once available.
Regards
Lakshmi
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Soumya S Murali | 2026-02-16 10:44:29 | Re: [Patch]Add tab completion for DELETE ... USING |
| Previous Message | Tomas Vondra | 2026-02-16 10:43:07 | Re: Crash related to Shared Memory |