Re: nested loop semijoin estimates
От | Tomas Vondra |
---|---|
Тема | Re: nested loop semijoin estimates |
Дата | |
Msg-id | 556DCCF9.9030505@2ndquadrant.com обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: nested loop semijoin estimates (Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>) |
Ответы |
Re: nested loop semijoin estimates
|
Список | pgsql-hackers |
On 06/02/15 16:37, Tom Lane wrote: > Tomas Vondra <tomas.vondra@2ndquadrant.com> writes: >> OK, so I did the testing today - with TPC-H and TPC-DS benchmarks. The >> results are good, IMHO. > > I'm a bit disturbed by that, because AFAICS from the plans, these > queries did not involve any semi or anti joins, which should mean > that the patch would not have changed the planner's behavior. You > were using the second patch as-posted, right, without further hacking > on compare_path_costs_fuzzily? Yes, no additional changes. > It's possible that the change was due to random variation in ANALYZE > statistics, in which case it was just luck. I don't think so. I simply loaded the data, ran ANALYZE, and then simply started either master or patched master. There should be no difference in statistics, I believe. Also, the plans contain pretty much the same row counts, but the costs differ. For example look at the 'cs_ui' CTE, right at the beginning of the analyze logs. The row counts are exactly the same, but the costs are different. And it's not using semijoins or not nested loops ... -- Tomas Vondra http://www.2ndQuadrant.com PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: