From: Etsuro Fujita <fujita.etsuro@lab.ntt.co.jp>
To: Antonin Houska <ah@cybertec.at>
Cc: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Cc: Andrew Gierth <andrew@tao11.riddles.org.uk>
Cc: pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org
Subject: Re: Problems with plan estimates in postgres_fdw
Date: Mon, 25 Feb 2019 18:40:11 +0900
Message-ID: <5C73B7FB.2010309@lab.ntt.co.jp> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <30939.1550848901@localhost>
References: <87pnz1aby9.fsf@news-spur.riddles.org.uk>
<1175.1533220908@sss.pgh.pa.us>
<5BB739CD.6040002@lab.ntt.co.jp>
<5BBC4140.50403@lab.ntt.co.jp>
<5C17A00E.5000005@lab.ntt.co.jp>
<5C232F39.9060509@lab.ntt.co.jp>
<5C25C7B5.2010802@lab.ntt.co.jp>
<5C518631.5080401@lab.ntt.co.jp>
<10994.1549559088@localhost>
<5C5D778F.3080501@lab.ntt.co.jp>
<5C6D474F.5010703@lab.ntt.co.jp>
<30939.1550848901@localhost>
(2019/02/23 0:21), Antonin Houska wrote:
> Etsuro Fujita<fujita.etsuro@lab.ntt.co.jp> wrote:
>>> (2019/02/08 2:04), Antonin Houska wrote:
>>>> * regression tests: I think test(s) should be added for queries that have
>>>> ORDER BY clause but do not have GROUP BY (and also no LIMIT / OFFSET)
>>>> clause. I haven't noticed such tests.
>> I noticed that such queries would be processed by what we already have for
>> sort pushdown (ie, add_paths_with_pathkeys_for_rel()). I might be missing
>> something, though.
>
> What about an ORDER BY expression that contains multiple Var nodes? For
> example
>
> SELECT * FROM foo ORDER BY x + y;
>
> I think the base relation should not be able to generate paths with the
> corresponding pathkeys, since its target should (besides PlaceHolderVars,
> which should not appear in the plan of this simple query at all) only emit
> individual Vars.
Actually, add_paths_with_pathkeys_for_rel() generates such pre-sorted
paths for the base relation, as shown in the below example using HEAD
without the patchset proposed in this thread:
postgres=# explain verbose select a+b from ft1 order by a+b;
QUERY PLAN
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Foreign Scan on public.ft1 (cost=100.00..200.32 rows=2560 width=4)
Output: (a + b)
Remote SQL: SELECT a, b FROM public.t1 ORDER BY (a + b) ASC NULLS LAST
(3 rows)
I think it is OK for that function to generate such paths, as tlists for
such paths would be adjusted in apply_scanjoin_target_to_paths(), by
doing create_projection_path() to them.
Conversely, it appears that add_foreign_ordered_paths() added by the
patchset would generate such pre-sorted paths *redundantly* when the
input_rel is the final scan/join relation. Will look into that.
Best regards,
Etsuro Fujita
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Reply to all the recipients using the --to and --cc options:
reply via email
To: pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org
Cc: fujita.etsuro@lab.ntt.co.jp, ah@cybertec.at, tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us, andrew@tao11.riddles.org.uk
Subject: Re: Problems with plan estimates in postgres_fdw
In-Reply-To: <5C73B7FB.2010309@lab.ntt.co.jp>
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
This inbox is served by DDX for PostgreSQL; see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox