Re: Make the qual cost on index Filter slightly higher than qual cost on index Cond.
От | Tom Lane |
---|---|
Тема | Re: Make the qual cost on index Filter slightly higher than qual cost on index Cond. |
Дата | |
Msg-id | 8810.1590714246@sss.pgh.pa.us обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: Make the qual cost on index Filter slightly higher than qualcost on index Cond. (Tomas Vondra <tomas.vondra@2ndquadrant.com>) |
Ответы |
Re: Make the qual cost on index Filter slightly higher than qual coston index Cond.
|
Список | pgsql-hackers |
Tomas Vondra <tomas.vondra@2ndquadrant.com> writes: > On Wed, May 27, 2020 at 09:58:04PM +0800, Andy Fan wrote: >> so we need to optimize the cost model for such case, the method is the >> patch I mentioned above. > Making the planner more robust w.r.t. to estimation errors is nice, but > I wouldn't go as far saying we should optimize for such cases. Yeah, it's a serious mistake to try to "optimize" for cases where we have no data or wrong data. By definition, we don't know what we're doing, so who's to say whether we've made it better or worse? And the possible side effects on cases where we do have good data are not to be ignored. > Anyway, I kinda doubt making the conditions 1.001 more expensive is a > way to make the planning more robust. I'm pretty sure we could construct > examples in the opposite direction, in which case this change make it > more likely we use the wrong index. The other serious error we could be making here is to change things on the basis of just a few examples. You really need a pretty wide range of test cases to be sure that you're not making things worse, any time you're twiddling basic parameters like these. regards, tom lane
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: