public inbox for [email protected]  

help / color / mirror / Atom feed

From: Andrei Lepikhov <[email protected]>
To: Tomas Vondra <[email protected]>
To: Andrei Lepikhov <[email protected]>
To: Andy Fan <[email protected]>
Cc: Julien Rouhaud <[email protected]>
Cc: Andres Freund <[email protected]>
Cc: [email protected]
Cc: Justin Pryzby <[email protected]>
Cc: [email protected]
Subject: Re: using extended statistics to improve join estimates
Date: Tue, 3 Sep 2024 14:58:05 +0200
Message-ID: <[email protected]> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <[email protected]>
References: <[email protected]>
	<[email protected]>
	<[email protected]>
	<[email protected]>
	<[email protected]>
	<[email protected]>
	<[email protected]>
	<20220119101809.wzrjvh4jsnoakgny@jrouhaud>
	<[email protected]>
	<[email protected]>
	<[email protected]>
	<[email protected]>
	<[email protected]>
	<[email protected]>
	<[email protected]>
	<[email protected]>
	<[email protected]>
	<[email protected]>

On 17/6/2024 18:10, Tomas Vondra wrote:
> Let me quickly go through the original parts - most of this is already
> in the "review" patches, but it's better to quote the main points here
> to start a discussion. I'll omit some of the smaller suggestions, so
> please look at the 'review' patches.
> 
> 
> v20240617-0001-Estimate-joins-using-extended-statistics.patch
> 
> - rewords a couple comments, particularly for statext_find_matching_mcv
> 
> - a couple XXX comments about possibly stale/inaccurate comments
> v20240617-0054-clauselist_selectivity_hook.patch
> 
> - I believe this does not work with the earlier patch that removed
> estimatedclaused bitmap from the "try" function.
This patch set is too big to eat at once - it's just challenging to 
invent examples and counterexamples. Can we see these two patches in the 
master and analyse further improvements based on that?

Some thoughts:
You remove verRelid. I have thought about replacing this value with 
RelOptInfo, which would allow extensions (remember selectivity hook) to 
know about the underlying path tree.

The first patch is generally ok, and I vote for having it in the master. 
However, the most harmful case I see most reports about is parameterised 
JOIN on multiple anded clauses. In that case, we have a scan filter on 
something like the below:
x = $1 AND y = $2 AND ...
As I see, current patch doesn't resolve this issue currently.

-- 
regards, Andrei Lepikhov

view thread (8+ messages)  latest in thread

reply

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: [email protected]
  Cc: [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected]
  Subject: Re: using extended statistics to improve join estimates
  In-Reply-To: <[email protected]>

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

This inbox is served by agora; see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox