Re: Index Skip Scan
| От | Peter Geoghegan |
|---|---|
| Тема | Re: Index Skip Scan |
| Дата | |
| Msg-id | CAH2-Wzkk0+vSAiaRSkX84KR0SofKkY1yGHEcLoRBXT-JjM37bw@mail.gmail.com обсуждение исходный текст |
| Ответ на | Re: Index Skip Scan (Thomas Munro <thomas.munro@enterprisedb.com>) |
| Ответы |
Re: Index Skip Scan
|
| Список | pgsql-hackers |
On Thu, Aug 16, 2018 at 4:10 PM, Thomas Munro <thomas.munro@enterprisedb.com> wrote: > Can you give an example of problematic ndistinct underestimation? Yes. See https://postgr.es/m/CAKuK5J12QokFh88tQz-oJMSiBg2QyjM7K7HLnbYi3Ze+Y5BtWQ@mail.gmail.com, for example. That's a complaint about an underestimation specifically. This seems to come up about once every 3 years, at least from my perspective. I'm always surprised that ndistinct doesn't get implicated in bad query plans more frequently. > I suppose you might be able to defend against that in the executor: if > you find that you've done an unexpectedly high number of skips, you > could fall back to regular next-tuple mode. Unfortunately that's > require the parent plan node to tolerate non-unique results. I like the idea of dynamic fallback in certain situations, but the details always seem complicated. -- Peter Geoghegan
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: