Date: Fri, 30 Sep 2022 10:00:31 +0200
Subject: Re: disfavoring unparameterized nested loops
From: Benjamin Coutu <ben.coutu@zeyos.com>
To: Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us>,
	Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Cc: Peter Geoghegan <pg@bowt.ie>,
	PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers@lists.postgresql.org>,
	Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com>,
	David Rowley <dgrowleyml@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <c7300b0679bb622a3b8f@zeyos.com>
In-Reply-To: <YzZU3rtDHus4Ycmo@momjian.us>
References: <YzZU3rtDHus4Ycmo@momjian.us>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Archived-At: 
 <https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/c7300b0679bb622a3b8f%40zeyos.com>
Precedence: bulk

> Actually, if we wanted to improve things in this area, we should have a
> set of queries that don't chose optimal plans we can test with.  We used
> to see them a lot before we had extended statistics, but I don't
> remember seeing many recently, let alone a collection of them.  I guess
> that is good.=0A=0AIn the VLDB paper they actually created their own "Joi=
n Order Benchmark", which is publicly available under https://github.com/gr=
egrahn/join-order-benchmark=0AIt would probably be more suited for this kin=
d of testing than, e.g. the TPC benchmarks.=0A=0AIf there is interest, I co=
uld also compile a set of relevant cases based on the message history of th=
e performance mailing list.