Re: Problems with plan estimates in postgres_fdw

Поиск
Список
Период
Сортировка
От Jeff Janes
Тема Re: Problems with plan estimates in postgres_fdw
Дата
Msg-id CAMkU=1z1Ez7fb_P_0Bc1040npE5fCOnu0M1DFyOzCp=e=rBJCw@mail.gmail.com
обсуждение исходный текст
Ответ на Re: Problems with plan estimates in postgres_fdw  (Etsuro Fujita <fujita.etsuro@lab.ntt.co.jp>)
Ответы Re: Problems with plan estimates in postgres_fdw  (Etsuro Fujita <fujita.etsuro@lab.ntt.co.jp>)
Список pgsql-hackers
On Wed, Jan 30, 2019 at 6:12 AM Etsuro Fujita <fujita.etsuro@lab.ntt.co.jp> wrote:
(2018/12/28 15:50), Etsuro Fujita wrote:
> Attached is a new version of the
> patch.

Here is an updated version of the patch set.  Changes are:

* In the previous version, LIMIT without OFFSET was not performed
remotely as the costs was calculated the same as the costs of performing
it locally.  (Actually, such LIMIT was performed remotely in a case in
the postgres_fdw regression test, but that was due to a bug :(.)  I
think we should prefer performing such LIMIT remotely as that avoids
extra row fetches from the remote that performing it locally might
cause, so I tweaked the costs estimated in estimate_path_cost_size(), to
ensure that we'll prefer performing such LIMIT remotely. 

With your tweaks, I'm still not seeing the ORDER-less LIMIT get pushed down when using use_remote_estimate in a simple test case, either with this set of patches, nor in the V4 set.  However, without use_remote_estimate, the LIMIT is now getting pushed with these patches when it does not in HEAD.

See attached test case, to be run in new database named 'foo'.

Cheers,

Jeff
Вложения

В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления:

Предыдущее
От: Stephen Frost
Дата:
Сообщение: Re: Compressed TOAST Slicing
Следующее
От: Euler Taveira
Дата:
Сообщение: Re: BRIN summarize autovac_report_workitem passes datname as relname