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
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 |
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 |