Re: Multi-pass planner
От | decibel |
---|---|
Тема | Re: Multi-pass planner |
Дата | |
Msg-id | 9BAD9CB5-E94C-48E9-B164-E7436098C14B@decibel.org обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: Multi-pass planner (Josh Berkus <josh@agliodbs.com>) |
Ответы |
Re: Multi-pass planner
|
Список | pgsql-hackers |
On Aug 20, 2009, at 11:18 PM, Josh Berkus wrote: >> I don't think it's a bad idea, I just think you have to set your >> expectations pretty low. If the estimates are bad there isn't really >> any plan that will be guaranteed to run quickly. > > Well, the way to do this is via a risk-confidence system. That is, > each > operation has a level of risk assigned to it; that is, the cost > multiplier if the estimates are wrong. And each estimate has a > level of > confidence attached. Then you can divide the risk by the confidence, > and if it exceeds a certain level, you pick another plan which has a > lower risk/confidence level. > > However, the amount of extra calculations required for even a simple > query are kind of frightning. Would it? Risk seems like it would just be something along the lines of the high-end of our estimate. I don't think confidence should be that hard either. IE: hard-coded guesses have a low confidence. Something pulled right out of most_common_vals has a high confidence. Something estimated via a bucket is in-between, and perhaps adjusted by the number of tuples. -- Decibel!, aka Jim C. Nasby, Database Architect decibel@decibel.org Give your computer some brain candy! www.distributed.net Team #1828
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: