Re: Default setting for enable_hashagg_disk

From: Greg Stark <stark(at)mit(dot)edu>
To: Justin Pryzby <pryzby(at)telsasoft(dot)com>
Cc: Tomas Vondra <tomas(dot)vondra(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Jeff Davis <pgsql(at)j-davis(dot)com>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: Default setting for enable_hashagg_disk
Date: 2020-06-12 03:35:19
Message-ID: CAM-w4HNSsZ=eQ596WawrfTfvJPPUV_5gsM8BpcYQ0hhcnF-44w@mail.gmail.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-docs pgsql-hackers

On Thu, 9 Apr 2020 at 13:24, Justin Pryzby <pryzby(at)telsasoft(dot)com> wrote:

> On Thu, Apr 09, 2020 at 01:48:55PM +0200, Tomas Vondra wrote:
>
> > It it really any different from our enable_* GUCs? Even if you do e.g.
> > enable_sort=off, we may still do a sort. Same for enable_groupagg etc.
>
> Those show that the GUC was disabled by showing disable_cost. That's
> what's
> different about this one.
>

Fwiw in the past this was seen not so much as a positive thing but a bug to
be fixed. We've talked about carrying a boolean "disabled plan" flag which
would be treated as a large cost penalty but not actually be added to the
cost in the plan.

The problems with the disable_cost in the cost are (at least):

1) It causes the resulting costs to be useless for comparing the plan costs
with other plans.

2) It can cause other planning decisions to be distorted in strange
non-linear ways.

--
greg

In response to

Browse pgsql-docs by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Dong Wook Lee 2020-06-12 08:55:35 Fwd: [PATCH] pg_dump: Add example and link for --encoding option
Previous Message Justin Pryzby 2020-06-12 02:45:43 Re: Default setting for enable_hashagg_disk

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Amit Kapila 2020-06-12 03:40:05 Re: Transactions involving multiple postgres foreign servers, take 2
Previous Message Amit Kapila 2020-06-12 03:25:34 Re: Parallel Seq Scan vs kernel read ahead