Re: Wrong rows estimations with joins of CTEs slows queries by more than factor 500
| От | Richard Guo |
|---|---|
| Тема | Re: Wrong rows estimations with joins of CTEs slows queries by more than factor 500 |
| Дата | |
| Msg-id | CAMbWs4_XuW-yGrcMctmhqfBZcy2itMXU+RtCN3qynv6efajYGQ@mail.gmail.com обсуждение исходный текст |
| Ответ на | Re: Wrong rows estimations with joins of CTEs slows queries by more than factor 500 (vignesh C <vignesh21@gmail.com>) |
| Ответы |
Re: Wrong rows estimations with joins of CTEs slows queries by more than factor 500
|
| Список | pgsql-hackers |
On Sat, Jan 27, 2024 at 10:08 AM vignesh C <vignesh21@gmail.com> wrote:
On Mon, 8 Jan 2024 at 22:21, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
>
> Richard Guo <guofenglinux@gmail.com> writes:
> > On Sun, Jan 7, 2024 at 6:41 AM Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
> >> Thanks for the report! I guess we need something like the attached.
>
> > +1.
>
> Pushed, thanks for looking at it.
I have changed the status of the commitfest entry to "Committed" as I
noticed the patch has already been committed.
Well, the situation seems a little complex here. At first, this thread
was dedicated to discussing the 'Examine-simple-variable-for-Var-in-CTE'
patch, which has already been pushed in [1]. Subsequently, I proposed
another patch 'Propagate-pathkeys-from-CTEs-up-to-the-outer-query' in
[2], which is currently under review and is what the commitfest entry
for. Later on, within the same thread, another patch was posted as a
fix to the first patch and was subsequently pushed in [3]. I believe
this sequence of events might have led to confusion.
What is the usual practice in such situations? I guess I'd better to
fork a new thread to discuss my proposed patch which is about the
'Propagate-pathkeys-from-CTEs-up-to-the-outer-query'.
[1] https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/754093.1700250120%40sss.pgh.pa.us
[2] https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/CAMbWs49gAHeEOn0rpdUUYXryaa60KZ8JKwk1aSERttY9caCYkA%40mail.gmail.com
[3] https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/1941515.1704732682%40sss.pgh.pa.us
Thanks
Richard
was dedicated to discussing the 'Examine-simple-variable-for-Var-in-CTE'
patch, which has already been pushed in [1]. Subsequently, I proposed
another patch 'Propagate-pathkeys-from-CTEs-up-to-the-outer-query' in
[2], which is currently under review and is what the commitfest entry
for. Later on, within the same thread, another patch was posted as a
fix to the first patch and was subsequently pushed in [3]. I believe
this sequence of events might have led to confusion.
What is the usual practice in such situations? I guess I'd better to
fork a new thread to discuss my proposed patch which is about the
'Propagate-pathkeys-from-CTEs-up-to-the-outer-query'.
[1] https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/754093.1700250120%40sss.pgh.pa.us
[2] https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/CAMbWs49gAHeEOn0rpdUUYXryaa60KZ8JKwk1aSERttY9caCYkA%40mail.gmail.com
[3] https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/1941515.1704732682%40sss.pgh.pa.us
Thanks
Richard
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: