From: | Andy Fan <zhihui(dot)fan1213(at)gmail(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
Cc: | David Rowley <david(dot)rowley(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Beena Emerson <memissemerson(at)gmail(dot)com>, Amit Langote <Langote_Amit_f8(at)lab(dot)ntt(dot)co(dot)jp>, amul sul <sulamul(at)gmail(dot)com>, "pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>, Dilip Kumar <dilipbalaut(at)gmail(dot)com>, Amit Langote <amitlangote09(at)gmail(dot)com> |
Subject: | Re: [HACKERS] Runtime Partition Pruning |
Date: | 2020-10-04 07:10:54 |
Message-ID: | CAKU4AWpAvJt9_335qckJg4bhQ4qBJWamqdbSR_Np-Qv68kdFZQ@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
>
>
>
> Now, in my experience, the current system for custom plans vs. generic
> plans doesn't approach the problem in this way at all, and in my
> experience that results in some pretty terrible behavior. It will do
> things like form a custom plan every time because the estimated cost
> of the custom plan is lower than the estimated cost of the generic
> plan even though the two plans are structurally identical; only the
> estimates differ. It will waste gobs of CPU cycles by replanning a
> primary key lookup 5 times just on the off chance that a lookup on the
> primary key index isn't the best option. But this patch isn't going
> to fix any of that. The best we can probably do is try to adjust the
> costing for Append paths in some way that reflects the costs and
> benefits of pruning. I'm tentatively in favor of trying to do
> something modest in that area, but I don't have a detailed proposal.
>
>
I just realized this issue recently and reported it at [1], then Amit
pointed
me to this issue being discussed here, so I would like to continue this
topic
here.
I think we can split the issue into 2 issues. One is the partition prune
in initial
partition prune, which maybe happen in custom plan case only and caused
the above issue. The other one happens in the "Run-Time" partition prune,
I admit that is an important issue to resolve as well, but looks harder.
So I
think we can fix the first one at first.
The proposal to fix the first one is we can remember how many partitions
survived after plan time pruned for a RelOptInfo for a custom plan. and
record
such information in the CachedPlanSource. When we count for the cost of a
generic plan, we can reduce the cost based on such information.
Any thought about this? I'd be sorry if I missed some already existing
discussion
on this topic.
--
Best Regards
Andy Fan
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Kuntal Ghosh | 2020-10-04 08:37:15 | Re: Incorrect assumption in heap_prepare_freeze_tuple |
Previous Message | Amit Langote | 2020-10-04 02:44:03 | Re: making update/delete of inheritance trees scale better |