From: | Ashutosh Bapat <ashutosh(dot)bapat(at)enterprisedb(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Thomas Munro <thomas(dot)munro(at)enterprisedb(dot)com> |
Cc: | Yuto Hayamizu <y(dot)hayamizu(at)gmail(dot)com>, Pg Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: [PATCH] Overestimated filter cost and its mitigation |
Date: | 2017-11-06 10:19:32 |
Message-ID: | CAFjFpRdUZPrZSVZMvEsvmKZDBB_HJGetFOVLHzHHd41NHpMT=A@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Mon, Nov 6, 2017 at 10:01 AM, Thomas Munro
<thomas(dot)munro(at)enterprisedb(dot)com> wrote:
>
> This idea seems to makes intuitive sense. I see that you use
> order_qual_clauses() to know what order they'll run in, so I'm
> wondering if there is any reason we shouldn't do it up front and keep
> it during path building, instead of running it again at plan creation
> time. Is there some way it could ever produce a different result at
> the two times?
IIRC, only thing that changes between plan time quals and execution
time quals is constaint folding of constant parameters. But I don't
think we change the selectivity estimates when that's done. At the
same time, I don't think we should make a lot of effort to make sure
that the order used during the estimation is same as the order at the
execution; we are anyway estimating. There can always be some
difference between what's estimated and what actually happens.
> Why not also apply this logic to qpquals of joins,
> foreign scans, subplans? That is, instead of replacing cost_qual_eval
> with this code for baserels, I wonder if we should teach
> cost_qual_eval how to do this so those other users could also benefit
> (having perhaps already ordered the qual clauses earlier).
+1.
--
Best Wishes,
Ashutosh Bapat
EnterpriseDB Corporation
The Postgres Database Company
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Amit Kapila | 2017-11-06 10:20:28 | Re: why not parallel seq scan for slow functions |
Previous Message | Amit Langote | 2017-11-06 10:01:42 | Re: path toward faster partition pruning |