From: | Andy Fan <zhihui(dot)fan1213(at)gmail(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | David Rowley <dgrowleyml(at)gmail(dot)com> |
Cc: | pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>, Zhang Mingli <zmlpostgres(at)gmail(dot)com> |
Subject: | Re: make add_paths_to_append_rel aware of startup cost |
Date: | 2023-10-01 08:26:13 |
Message-ID: | CAKU4AWqC5dR6DJ+XYiE+W4YiaokbE-myVgdnvqX3wx_Z87hk+w@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Hi David,
But overall, I'm more inclined to just go with the more simple "add a
> cheap unordered startup append path if considering cheap startup
> plans" version. I see your latest patch does both. So, I'd suggest two
> patches as I do see the merit in keeping this simple and cheap. If we
> can get the first part in and you still find cases where you're not
> getting the most appropriate startup plan based on the tuple fraction,
> then we can reconsider what extra complexity we should endure in the
> code based on the example query where we've demonstrated the planner
> is not choosing the best startup path appropriate to the given tuple
> fraction.
>
I think this is a fair point, I agree that your first part is good enough
to be
committed first. Actually I tried a lot to make a test case which can
prove
the value of cheapest fractional cost but no gain so far:(
--
Best Regards
Andy Fan
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Zhang Mingli | 2023-10-01 14:44:07 | Skip Orderby Execution for Materialized Views |
Previous Message | Andrei Lepikhov | 2023-10-01 06:32:23 | Re: POC: GROUP BY optimization |