From: | Peter Geoghegan <pg(at)bowt(dot)ie> |
---|---|
To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
Cc: | Sajith Prabhakar Shetty <ssajith(at)blackduck(dot)com>, Andrei Lepikhov <lepihov(at)gmail(dot)com>, "pgsql-bugs(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-bugs(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org>, Todd Cook <cookt(at)blackduck(dot)com> |
Subject: | Re: Postgres: Queries are too slow after upgrading to PG17 from PG15 |
Date: | 2025-07-31 21:40:51 |
Message-ID: | CAH2-WzmOOBV7wtu3K6R_zO105Qi_BE-2Ki5T9KLsHETP=GQwAA@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-bugs |
On Thu, Jul 31, 2025 at 5:25 PM Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
> Cool, will you do the legwork?
I'll give it a go.
> > Is there a convenient choke point for this in the planner?
>
> I'd be inclined to do it as late as possible, in create_plan
> (so that we don't expend the effort if we don't choose that
> index path). So in or near fix_indexqual_references is
> probably a good spot.
Understood.
> >> An alternative thought is that maybe the run-time sort is expensive
> >> enough that the planner ought to account for it in its estimates.
>
> > I tend to doubt that this will ever make much sense.
>
> As you say, getting the cost estimates accurate enough is daunting,
> which is why I called it a research project.
I think that it might make sense to add a little more startup cost to
plans with SAOP arrays. But that doesn't seem likely to help with this
particular problem.
--
Peter Geoghegan
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Todd Cook | 2025-07-31 21:59:34 | Re: Postgres: Queries are too slow after upgrading to PG17 from PG15 |
Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2025-07-31 21:25:28 | Re: Postgres: Queries are too slow after upgrading to PG17 from PG15 |