Hi,
On 2022-01-21 01:06:37 +0100, Tomas Vondra wrote:
> Yeah, I haven't updated some of the test output because some of those
> changes are a bit wrong (and I think that's fine for a PoC patch). I
> should have mentioned that in the message, though. Sorry about that.
Given that the patch hasn't been updated since January and that it's a PoC in
the final CF, it seems like it should at least be moved to the next CF? Or
perhaps returned?
I've just marked it as waiting-on-author for now - iirc that leads to fewer
reruns by cfbot once it's failing...
> 2) The correlated samples are currently built using a query, executed
> through SPI in a loop. So given a "driving" sample of 30k rows, we do
> 30k lookups - that'll take time, even if we do that just once and cache
> the results.
Ugh, yea, that's going to increase overhead by at least a few factors.
> I'm sure there there's room for some improvement, though - for example
> we don't need to fetch all columns included in the statistics object,
> but just stuff referenced by the clauses we're estimating. That could
> improve chance of using IOS etc.
Yea. Even just avoid avoiding SPI / planner + executor seems likely to be a
big win.
It seems one more of the cases where we really need logic to recognize "cheap"
vs "expensive" plans, so that we only do sampling when useful. I don't think
that's solved just by having a declarative syntax.
Greetings,
Andres Freund