| From: | Richard Guo <guofenglinux(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | Jian Guo <gjian(at)vmware(dot)com>, Tomas Vondra <tomas(dot)vondra(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>, Hans Buschmann <buschmann(at)nidsa(dot)net>, "pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org>, Zhenghua Lyu <zlyu(at)vmware(dot)com> |
| Subject: | Re: Wrong rows estimations with joins of CTEs slows queries by more than factor 500 |
| Date: | 2023-11-17 06:41:12 |
| Message-ID: | CAMbWs49eVQMgfR-KNALJB15RR5r-zjNtNWnB0j5S=j40gtu1Jg@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Fri, Nov 17, 2023 at 11:38 AM Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
> That line of argument also leads to the conclusion that it'd be
> okay to expose info about the ordering of the CTE result to the
> upper planner. This patch doesn't do that, and I'm not sufficiently
> excited about the issue to go write some code. But if someone else
> does, I think we shouldn't exclude doing it on the grounds of wanting
> to preserve an optimization fence. The fence is sort of one-way
> in this line of thinking: information can propagate up to the outer
> planner level, but not down into the CTE plan.
>
> Thoughts?
Exactly! Thanks for the detailed explanation.
Thanks
Richard
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | jian he | 2023-11-17 07:12:30 | Re: SQL:2011 application time |
| Previous Message | Laurenz Albe | 2023-11-17 05:41:46 | Re: Use of backup_label not noted in log |