Re: On disable_cost
От
Laurenz Albe
Тема
Re: On disable_cost
Дата
Msg-id
0cdd3504502aac827acb3ae615eda09aeb883f74.camel@cybertec.at
Ответ на
Re: On disable_cost (David Rowley)
Список
Дерево обсуждения
On disable_cost Zhenghua Lyu <zlv@pivotal.io>
Re: On disable_cost Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Re: On disable_cost Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com>
Re: On disable_cost David Rowley <dgrowleyml@gmail.com>
Re: On disable_cost Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Re: On disable_cost Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com>
Re: On disable_cost Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com>
Re: On disable_cost Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Re: On disable_cost Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Re: On disable_cost Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com>
Re: On disable_cost Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Re: On disable_cost David Rowley <dgrowleyml@gmail.com>
Re: On disable_cost Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com>
Re: On disable_cost Peter Geoghegan <pg@bowt.ie>
Re: On disable_cost Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com>
Re: On disable_cost Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com>
Re: On disable_cost Andres Freund <andres@anarazel.de>
Re: On disable_cost Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com>
Re: On disable_cost Andres Freund <andres@anarazel.de>
Re: On disable_cost Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com>
Re: On disable_cost Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com>
Re: On disable_cost Heikki Linnakangas <hlinnaka@iki.fi>
Re: On disable_cost Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com>
Re: On disable_cost Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Re: On disable_cost Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com>
Re: On disable_cost Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Re: On disable_cost Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com>
Re: On disable_cost Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Re: On disable_cost Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com>
Re: On disable_cost Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Re: On disable_cost Heikki Linnakangas <hlinnaka@iki.fi>
Re: On disable_cost Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Re: On disable_cost David Rowley <dgrowleyml@gmail.com>
Re: On disable_cost Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com>
Re: On disable_cost David Rowley <dgrowleyml@gmail.com>
Re: On disable_cost Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com>
Re: On disable_cost David Rowley <dgrowleyml@gmail.com>
Re: On disable_cost Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com>
Re: On disable_cost David Rowley <dgrowleyml@gmail.com>
Re: On disable_cost Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com>
Re: On disable_cost Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Re: On disable_cost Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com>
Re: On disable_cost Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com>
Re: On disable_cost Laurenz Albe <laurenz.albe@cybertec.at>
Re: On disable_cost Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com>
Re: On disable_cost Laurenz Albe <laurenz.albe@cybertec.at>
Re: On disable_cost Alexander Lakhin <exclusion@gmail.com>
Re: On disable_cost Richard Guo <guofenglinux@gmail.com>
Re: On disable_cost Richard Guo <guofenglinux@gmail.com>
Re: On disable_cost Alexander Lakhin <exclusion@gmail.com>
Re: On disable_cost Richard Guo <guofenglinux@gmail.com>
Re: On disable_cost Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com>
Re: On disable_cost Jelte Fennema-Nio <postgres@jeltef.nl>
Re: On disable_cost Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com>
Re: On disable_cost Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com>
Re: On disable_cost Thomas Munro <thomas.munro@gmail.com>
Re: On disable_cost Andres Freund <andres@anarazel.de>
Re: On disable_cost Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com>
Re: On disable_cost Jim Finnerty <jfinnert@amazon.com>
Re: On disable_cost Tomas Vondra <tomas.vondra@2ndquadrant.com>
Re: On disable_cost Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Re: On disable_cost Jim Finnerty <jfinnert@amazon.com>
Re: On disable_cost Laurenz Albe <laurenz.albe@cybertec.at>
Re: On disable_cost Thomas Munro <thomas.munro@gmail.com>
Re: On disable_cost Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Re: On disable_cost Greg Stark <stark@mit.edu>
Re: On disable_cost Greg Stark <stark@mit.edu>
Re: On disable_cost Andres Freund <andres@anarazel.de>
Re: On disable_cost Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com>
Re: On disable_cost Andres Freund <andres@anarazel.de>
Re: On disable_cost Euler Taveira <euler@timbira.com.br>
Re: On disable_cost Jian Guo <gjian@vmware.com>
Re: On disable_cost Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com>
Re: On disable_cost Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Re: On disable_cost Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com>
Re: On disable_cost Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Re: On disable_cost Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com>
Re: On disable_cost Greg Sabino Mullane <htamfids@gmail.com>
Re: On disable_cost Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com>
Re: On disable_cost Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Re: On disable_cost Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com>
Re: On disable_cost Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Re: On disable_cost Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com>
Re: On disable_cost David Rowley <dgrowleyml@gmail.com>
Re: On disable_cost David Rowley <dgrowleyml@gmail.com>
Re: On disable_cost Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com>
Re: On disable_cost Greg Sabino Mullane <htamfids@gmail.com>
Re: On disable_cost Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com>
Re: On disable_cost Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Re: On disable_cost Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com>
Re: On disable_cost David Rowley <dgrowleyml@gmail.com>
Re: On disable_cost Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Re: On disable_cost Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com>
On Wed, 2024-10-02 at 21:55 +1300, David Rowley wrote:
> On Tue, 1 Oct 2024 at 06:17, Laurenz Albe wrote:
> > Why did you change "Disabled" from an integer to a boolean?
>
> I just don't think "Disabled Nodes" is all that self-documenting and
> I'm also unsure why the full integer value of disabled_nodes is
> required over just displaying the boolean value of if the node is
> disabled or not. Won't readers look at the remainder of the plan to
> determine information about which other nodes are disabled? Do we need
> to give them a running total?
I didn't want a running total, but maybe I misunderstood what a disabled
node is; see below.
> > If you see a join where two plans were disabled, that's useful information.
>
> I'm not sure if I follow what you mean here. The patch will show
> "Disabled: true" for both the inner and outer side of the join if both
> of those are disabled. The difference is that my patch does not show
> the join itself is disabled like master does. I thought that's what
> you were complaining about. Can you show an example of what you mean?
I ran the following example, and now I am confused.
CREATE TABLE tab_a (id integer);
CREATE TABLE tab_b (id integer);
SET enable_nestloop = off;
SET enable_hashjoin = off;
EXPLAIN SELECT * FROM tab_a JOIN tab_b USING (id);
QUERY PLAN
═════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
Merge Join (cost=359.57..860.00 rows=32512 width=4)
Merge Cond: (tab_a.id = tab_b.id)
-> Sort (cost=179.78..186.16 rows=2550 width=4)
Sort Key: tab_a.id
-> Seq Scan on tab_a (cost=0.00..35.50 rows=2550 width=4)
-> Sort (cost=179.78..186.16 rows=2550 width=4)
Sort Key: tab_b.id
-> Seq Scan on tab_b (cost=0.00..35.50 rows=2550 width=4)
I would have expected to see "Disabled nodes: 2" with the merge join,
because both the nested loop join and the hash join have been disabled.
Why is there no disabled node shown?
Yours,
Laurenz Albe
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления
От: Andrew Dunstan
Дата: