Message-ID: <51889FF4.7000306@catalyst.net.nz>
Date: Tue, 07 May 2013 18:32:20 +1200
From: Mark Kirkwood <mark.kirkwood@catalyst.net.nz>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64;
	rv:17.0) Gecko/20130404 Thunderbird/17.0.5
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Simon Riggs <simon@2ndQuadrant.com>
CC: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>,
	Gavin Flower <gavinflower@archidevsys.co.nz>,
	"pgsql-performance@postgresql.org" <pgsql-performance@postgresql.org>
Subject: Re: In progress INSERT wrecks plans on table
References: <5179E77B.7050601@catalyst.net.nz>
	<5179ECC5.2010206@archidevsys.co.nz>
	<5179F259.3010509@catalyst.net.nz>
	<5179F5C6.8070702@archidevsys.co.nz>
	<5180E3C8.3010201@catalyst.net.nz> <2121.1367417215@sss.pgh.pa.us>
	<5181B80D.70404@catalyst.net.nz>
	<CA+U5nMKYYZDekhtxz1E1B11dAm9UJoHBQHrB6DiiZDJo3fLd0Q@mail.gmail.com>
	<916bff05a5ab130c76d7835abbaf7762.squirrel@mail.catalyst.net.nz>
	<CA+U5nMJHjQccVSB3SkAHdRn2AfuuO49wA8-ZGB366cddTynjdQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<CA+U5nMKMfZUEimZ9=oF2wJ-WkiGhMw3mQjUFT6PBGofUpmXL8A@mail.gmail.com>
	<51870CB6.6090404@catalyst.net.nz>
	<CA+U5nMJHgHczmWrKzst=PJeP+9BHJAsTgRNXyVZX5Oyys2zn_g@mail.gmail.com>
	<feb60a4b1d9e3af7b646b0274064a1d9.squirrel@mail.catalyst.net.nz>
	<CA+U5nMJqUHE-t5eBuMZGu-_0rJbfoqrYJ=oi_xvKhrq8_31F2A@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: 
 <CA+U5nMJqUHE-t5eBuMZGu-_0rJbfoqrYJ=oi_xvKhrq8_31F2A@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Precedence: bulk
Sender: pgsql-performance-owner@postgresql.org

On 07/05/13 18:10, Simon Riggs wrote:
> On 7 May 2013 01:23,  <mark.kirkwood@catalyst.net.nz> wrote:
>
>> I'm thinking that a variant of (2) might be simpler to inplement:
>>
>> (I think Matt C essentially beat me to this suggestion - he originally
>> discovered this issue). It is probably good enough for only *new* plans to
>> react to the increased/increasing number of in progress rows. So this
>> would require backends doing significant numbers of row changes to either
>> directly update pg_statistic or report their in progress numbers to the
>> stats collector. The key change here is the partial execution numbers
>> would need to be sent. Clearly one would need to avoid doing this too
>> often (!) - possibly only when number of changed rows >
>> autovacuum_analyze_scale_factor proportion of the relation concerned or
>> similar.
>
> Are you loading using COPY? Why not break down the load into chunks?
>

INSERT - but we could maybe workaround by chunking the INSERT. However 
that *really* breaks the idea that in SQL you just say what you want, 
not how the database engine should do it! And more practically means 
that the most obvious and clear way to add your new data has nasty side 
effects, and you have to tip toe around muttering secret incantations to 
make things work well :-)

I'm still thinking that making postgres smarter about having current 
stats for getting the actual optimal plan is the best solution.

Cheers

Mark


-- 
Sent via pgsql-performance mailing list (pgsql-performance@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-performance