On 13 October 2017 at 19:36, Jeevan Chalke
<jeevan.chalke@enterprisedb.com> wrote:
> I have tried exactly same tests to get to this factor on my local developer
> machine. And with parallelism enabled I got this number as 7.9. However, if
> I disable the parallelism (and I believe David too disabled that), I get
> this number as 1.8. Whereas for 10000 rows, I get this number to 1.7
>
> -- With Gather
> # select current_Setting('cpu_tuple_cost')::float8 / ((10633.56 * (81.035 /
> 72.450) - 10633.56) / 1000000);
> 7.9
>
> -- Without Gather
> # select current_Setting('cpu_tuple_cost')::float8 / ((16925.01 * (172.838 /
> 131.400) - 16925.01) / 1000000);
> 1.8
>
> -- With 10000 rows (so no Gather too)
> # select current_Setting('cpu_tuple_cost')::float8 / ((170.01 * (1.919 /
> 1.424) - 170.01) / 10000);
> 1.7
>
> So it is not so straight forward to come up the correct heuristic here. Thus
> using 50% of cpu_tuple_cost look good to me here.
>
> As suggested by Ashutosh and Robert, attached separate small WIP patch for
> it.
Good to see it stays fairly consistent at different tuple counts, and
is not too far away from what I got on this machine.
I looked over the patch and saw this:
@@ -1800,6 +1827,9 @@ cost_merge_append(Path *path, PlannerInfo *root, */ run_cost += cpu_operator_cost * tuples;
+ /* Add MergeAppend node overhead like we do it for the Append node */
+ run_cost += cpu_tuple_cost * DEFAULT_APPEND_COST_FACTOR * tuples;
+ path->startup_cost = startup_cost + input_startup_cost; path->total_cost = startup_cost + run_cost +
input_total_cost;}
You're doing that right after a comment that says we don't do that. It
also does look like the "run_cost += cpu_operator_cost * tuples" is
trying to do the same thing, so perhaps it's worth just replacing
that, which by default will double that additional cost, although
doing so would have the planner slightly prefer a MergeAppend to an
Append than previously.
+#define DEFAULT_APPEND_COST_FACTOR 0.5
I don't really think the DEFAULT_APPEND_COST_FACTOR adds much. it
means very little by itself. It also seems that most of the other cost
functions just use the magic number.
-- David Rowley http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training & Services
--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers