Message-ID: <55565053.9030009@agliodbs.com>
Date: Fri, 15 May 2015 13:00:19 -0700
From: Josh Berkus <josh@agliodbs.com>
Organization: PostgreSQL Experts Inc.
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64;
 rv:31.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/31.6.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com>
CC: Jeff Janes <jeff.janes@gmail.com>,
 Tomas Vondra <tomas.vondra@2ndquadrant.com>,
 "pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org" <pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org>
Subject: Re: PATCH: adaptive ndistinct estimator v4
References: <541A2335.3060100@agliodbs.com>	<542DADEB.2080103@agliodbs.com>
	<CAM-w4HNfZymQmTu3+TxQQD-e6_410-sDnZBaW8neurmTFh4GbA@mail.gmail.com>
	<f4c06746b31e468f9550fb9924798da3.squirrel@2.emaily.eu>
	<54381D20.9010501@fuzzy.cz>
	<CAMkU=1yoiQt6+_XMACL=PTv-aHwc1E0BgiHGhKW3HL+ByN6zpw@mail.gmail.com>
	<5472416C.3080506@fuzzy.cz>	<5483B346.6000203@fuzzy.cz>
	<551AEF45.7010700@2ndquadrant.com>
	<CA+TgmoaCsdM5WSpaVNmbWBN8+wuOGfYt1reZttGmDG1CnJvtLQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<5542D4CF.5060700@2ndquadrant.com>
	<CAMkU=1yR=i5F1RnmJsB9C-iEbTE3J1sR+4mRbcPy6mwCotPxfQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<CA+TgmoZ6FgvwVTyzM7hLiHDifYinXKsTiRWxh062AETOt8Dw7Q@mail.gmail.com>
	<WM!de8c487c7acd0ce97fa1867eca3bd6d9621ef2044834973f21e5cd6c45f43a210654790359d4c50fe70c697b68ef7d0f!@asav-2.01.com>
	<55564A96.7040506@agliodbs.com>
 <CA+Tgmoakb70B9ODaAVCTQgTsEVH0uDd2T9BjJYUqDTotXu4owA@mail.gmail.com>
 <WM!d99055f39532b8ded6cd27642afabc0934c7a188c2ed0cb0a4ac3ec1e9ac9d49b15558ac20568b4827fc822814444e04!@asav-3.01.com>
In-Reply-To: 
 <WM!d99055f39532b8ded6cd27642afabc0934c7a188c2ed0cb0a4ac3ec1e9ac9d49b15558ac20568b4827fc822814444e04!@asav-3.01.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Precedence: bulk
Sender: pgsql-hackers-owner@postgresql.org

On 05/15/2015 12:58 PM, Robert Haas wrote:
> On Fri, May 15, 2015 at 3:35 PM, Josh Berkus <josh@agliodbs.com> wrote:
>> On 05/15/2015 11:30 AM, Robert Haas wrote:
>>> Once we enter beta (or even feature freeze), it's too late to whack
>>> around the algorithm heavily.  We're pretty much committed to
>>> releasing and supporting whatever we have got at that point.  I guess
>>> we could revert it if it doesn't work out, but that's about the only
>>> option at that point.  We have more flexibility during the main part
>>> of the development cycle.  But your point is certainly valid and I
>>> don't mean to dispute it.
>>
>> I will finally have a customer workload available to test this on this
>> weekend.  That's been rather delayed by the availability of customer
>> hardware,because I'm not allowed to copy out the database.  However,
>> this is a database which suffers from multiple ndistinct estimation
>> issues in production, so I should be able to get a set of stats back by
>> Monday which would show how much of a general improvement it is.
>>
>> I realize that's after the deadline, but there wasn't much I could do
>> about it.  I've tried to simulate the kind of estimation issues I've
>> seen, but they don't simulate well.
> 
> This is clearly 9.6 material at this point, and has been for a while.
> The patch - at least the last version I looked at - didn't store
> anything different in pg_statistic.  It just logged what it would have
> stored.  So testing is good, but there's not a question of pushing
> this into 9.5.

I'm personally OK with that.  The last thing we want to do is make query
costing changes *in haste*.

-- 
Josh Berkus
PostgreSQL Experts Inc.
http://pgexperts.com


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