Re: [PATCH] Equivalence Class Filters
От | Jim Nasby |
---|---|
Тема | Re: [PATCH] Equivalence Class Filters |
Дата | |
Msg-id | 56676E06.3010108@BlueTreble.com обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: [PATCH] Equivalence Class Filters (David Rowley <david.rowley@2ndquadrant.com>) |
Список | pgsql-hackers |
On 12/7/15 7:26 PM, David Rowley wrote: > I was talking to Thomas Munro yesterday about this, and he mentioned > that it would be quite nice to have some stats on how much time is spent > in the planner, vs executor. He came up with the idea of adding a column > to pg_stat_statements to record the planning time. I think that would be useful. Maybe something in pg_stat_database too. > If we could get real statistics on real world cases and we discovered > that, for example on average that the total CPU time of planning was > only 1% of execution time, then it would certainly make adding 2% > overhead onto the planner a bit less of a worry, as this would just be > %2 of 1% (0.02%). Such information, if fed back into the community might > be able to drive us in the right direction when it comes to deciding > what needs to be done to resolve this constant issue with accepting > planner improvement patches. Might be nice, but I think it's also pretty unnecessary. I've dealt with dozens of queries that took minutes to hours to run. Yet I can't recall ever having an EXPLAIN on one of these take more than a few seconds. I tend to do more OLTP stuff so maybe others have experienced long-running EXPLAIN, in which case it'd be great to know that. Actually, I have seen long EXPLAIN times, but only as part of trying to aggressively increase *_collapse_limit. IIRC I was able to increase one of those to 14 and one to 18 before plan time became unpredictably bad (it wasn't always bad though, just sometimes). > I believe that with parallel query on the horizon for 9.6 that we're now > aiming to support bigger OLAP type database than ever before. So if we > ignore patches like this one then it appears that we have some > conflicting goals in the community as it seems that we're willing to add > the brawn, but we're not willing to add the brain. If this is the case > then it's a shame, as I think we can have both. So I very much agree on > the fact that we must find a way to maintain support and high > performance of small OLTP databases too. +1 -- Jim Nasby, Data Architect, Blue Treble Consulting, Austin TX Experts in Analytics, Data Architecture and PostgreSQL Data in Trouble? Get it in Treble! http://BlueTreble.com
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: