Re: A wrong index choose issue because of inaccurate statistics

I know one project where they used PostgreSQL code base to detect
"robust plans". https://dsl.cds.iisc.ac.in/projects/PICASSO/. Some of
the papers cited in https://www.vldb.org/pvldb/vldb2010/papers/D01.pdf
describe the idea. 

In short, the idea is to annotate a plan with a "bandwidth" i.e. how
does the plan fair with degradation of statistics. A plan which has a
slightly higher cost which doesn't degrade much with degradation of
statistics is preferred over a low cost plan whose cost rises sharply
with degradation of statistics. This is similar to what David is
suggesting.

On Fri, Jun 5, 2020 at 12:00 PM Pavel Stehule <pavel.stehule@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> pá 5. 6. 2020 v 8:19 odesílatel David Rowley <dgrowleyml@gmail.com> napsal:
>>
>> On Mon, 1 Jun 2020 at 01:24, Andy Fan <zhihui.fan1213@gmail.com> wrote:
>> > The one-line fix describe the exact idea in my mind:
>> >
>> > +++ b/src/backend/optimizer/path/costsize.c
>> > @@ -730,6 +730,13 @@ cost_index(IndexPath *path, PlannerInfo *root, double loop_count,
>> >
>> >         cpu_run_cost += cpu_per_tuple * tuples_fetched;
>> >
>> > +       /*
>> > +        * To make the planner more robust to handle some inaccurate statistics
>> > +        * issue, we will add a extra cost to qpquals so that the less qpquals
>> > +        * the lower cost it has.
>> > +        */
>> > +       cpu_run_cost += 0.01 * list_length(qpquals);
>> > +
>> >
>> > This change do fix the issue above, but will it make some other cases worse? My
>> > answer is no based on my current knowledge, and this is most important place
>> > I want to get advised. The mainly impact I can figure out is: it not only
>> > change the cost difference between (a, b) and (a, c) it also cause the cost
>> > difference between Index scan on (a, c) and seq scan.  However the
>> > cost different between index scan and seq scan are huge by practice so
>> > I don't think this impact is harmful.
>>
>> Didn't that idea already get shot down in the final paragraph on [1]?
>>
>> I understand that you wish to increase the cost by some seemingly
>> innocent constant to fix your problem case.  Here are my thoughts
>> about that: Telling lies is not really that easy to pull off. Bad
>> liers think it's easy and good ones know it's hard. The problem is
>> that the lies can start small, but then at some point the future you
>> must fashion some more lies to account for your initial lie. Rinse and
>> repeat that a few times and before you know it, your course is set
>> well away from the point of truth.  I feel the part about "rinse and
>> repeat" applies reasonably well to how join costing works.  The lie is
>> likely to be amplified as the join level gets deeper.
>>
>> I think you need to think of a more generic solution and propose that
>> instead.  There are plenty of other quirks in the planner that can
>> cause suffering due to inaccurate or non-existing statistics. For
>> example, due to how we multiply individual selectivity estimates,
>> having a few correlated columns in a join condition can cause the
>> number of join rows to be underestimated. Subsequent joins can then
>> end up making bad choices on which join operator to use based on those
>> inaccurate row estimates.  There's also a problem with WHERE <x> ORDER
>> BY col LIMIT n; sometimes choosing an index that provides pre-sorted
>> input to the ORDER BY but cannot use <x> as an indexable condition.
>> We don't record any stats to make better choices there, maybe we
>> should, but either way, we're taking a bit risk there as all the rows
>> matching <x> might be right at the end of the index and we might need
>> to scan the entire thing before hitting the LIMIT. For now, we just
>> assume completely even distribution of rows. i.e. If there are 50 rows
>> estimated in the path and the limit is for 5 rows, then we'll assume
>> we need to read 10% of those before finding all the ones we need. In
>> reality, everything matching <x> might be 95% through the index and we
>> could end up reading 100% of rows. That particular problem is not just
>> caused by the uneven distribution of rows in the index, but also from
>> selectivity underestimation.
>>
>> I'd more recently wondered if we shouldn't have some sort of "risk"
>> factor to the cost model. I really don't have ideas on how exactly we
>> would calculate the risk factor in all cases, but in this case,  say
>> the risk factor always starts out as 1. We could multiply that risk
>> factor by some >1 const each time we find another index filter qual.
>> add_path() can prefer lower risk paths when the costs are similar.
>> Unsure what the exact add_path logic would be. Perhaps a GUC would
>> need to assist with the decision there.   Likewise, with
>> NestedLoopPaths which have a large number of join quals, the risk
>> factor could go up a bit with those so that we take a stronger
>> consideration for hash or merge joins instead.
>>
>
> I thought about these ideas too. And I am not alone.
>
> https://hal.archives-ouvertes.fr/hal-01316823/document
>
> Regards
>
> Pavel
>
>> Anyway, it's pretty much a large research subject which would take a
>> lot of work to iron out even just the design. It's likely not a
>> perfect idea, but I think it has a bit more merit that trying to
>> introduce lies to the cost modal to account for a single case where
>> there is a problem.
>>
>> David
>>
>> [1] https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/20200529001602.eu7vuiouuuiclpgb%40development
>>
>>


--
Best Wishes,
Ashutosh Bapat