Re: pgsql: Fix an oversight in the 8.2 patch that improved mergejoin
От | Simon Riggs |
---|---|
Тема | Re: pgsql: Fix an oversight in the 8.2 patch that improved mergejoin |
Дата | |
Msg-id | 1220711890.4371.1321.camel@ebony.2ndQuadrant обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: pgsql: Fix an oversight in the 8.2 patch that improved mergejoin (Gregory Stark <stark@enterprisedb.com>) |
Список | pgsql-committers |
On Sat, 2008-09-06 at 13:06 +0100, Gregory Stark wrote: > tgl@postgresql.org (Tom Lane) writes: > > > (The materialize protects the sort from having to support mark/restore, > > allowing it to do its final merge pass on-the-fly.) We neglected to teach > > cost_mergejoin about that hack, so it was failing to include the > > materialize's costs in the estimated cost of the mergejoin. > > Is that right? The materialize is just doing the same writing that the final > pass of the sort would have been doing. Did we discount the costs for sort for > that skipping writing that final pass when that was done? IIRC the cost of the sort didn't include the final merge, so when we avoided the final merge the cost model for the sort became accurate. Perhaps we should add something when we don't do that. It seems reasonable than an extra node should cost something anyhow, and the per tuple cost is the current standard way of indicating that extra cost. -- Simon Riggs www.2ndQuadrant.com PostgreSQL Training, Services and Support
В списке pgsql-committers по дате отправления: