Re: Getting sorted data from foreign server
От | Ashutosh Bapat |
---|---|
Тема | Re: Getting sorted data from foreign server |
Дата | |
Msg-id | CAFjFpRcn9o3jqUSdxrbPUQ+=YAhYOCnm31n9QSPZM=iRE2a4RA@mail.gmail.com обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: Getting sorted data from foreign server (Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com>) |
Ответы |
Re: Getting sorted data from foreign server
|
Список | pgsql-hackers |
On Fri, Oct 23, 2015 at 2:43 AM, Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com> wrote:
On Wed, Oct 21, 2015 at 5:23 AM, Ashutosh Bapat
<ashutosh.bapat@enterprisedb.com> wrote:
> Increasing the sorting cost factor (when use_remote_estimates = false) from
> 1.1 to 1.2 makes the difference disappear.
>
> Since the startup costs for postgres_fdw are large portion of total cost,
> extra 10% of rest of the cost is comparable to 1% fuzzy limit. IMO, we
> shouldn't bother too much about it as the path costs are not much different.
My feeling is that cranking the sorting cost factor up to 20-25% would
be a good idea, just so we have less unnecessary plan churn. I dunno
if sorting always costs that much, but if a 10% cost overhead is
really 1% because it only applies to a fraction of the cost, I don't
think that's good. The whole point was to pick something large enough
that we wouldn't take the sorted path unless we will benefit from the
sort, and clearly that's not what happened here.
PFA patch with the default multiplication factor for sort bumped up to 1.2.
--
Best Wishes,
Ashutosh Bapat
EnterpriseDB Corporation
The Postgres Database Company
Ashutosh Bapat
EnterpriseDB Corporation
The Postgres Database Company
Вложения
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: