On Thu, Jun 11, 2020 at 4:54 PM David Rowley <dgrowleyml@gmail.com> wrote:
> I think someone at some point is not going to like the automatic
> choice. So perhaps a reloption to allow users to overwrite it is a
> good idea. -1 should most likely mean use the automatic choice based
> on relation size. I think for parallel seq scans that filter a large
> portion of the records most likely need some sort of index, but there
> are perhaps some genuine cases for not having one. e.g perhaps the
> query is just not run often enough for an index to be worthwhile. In
> that case, the performance is likely less critical, but at least the
> reloption would allow users to get the old behaviour.
Let me play the devil's advocate here. I feel like if the step size is
limited by the relation size and there is ramp-up and ramp-down, or
maybe even if you don't have all 3 of those but perhaps say 2 of them,
the chances of there being a significant downside from using this seem
quite small. At that point I wonder whether you really need an option.
It's true that someone might not like it, but there are all sorts of
things that at least one person doesn't like and one can't cater to
all of them.
To put that another way, in what scenario do we suppose that a
reasonable person would wish to use this reloption? If there's none,
we don't need it. If there is one, can we develop a mitigation that
solves their problem automatically instead?
--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company