From: Joshua Berkus <josh@agliodbs.com>
To: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Cc: Claudio Freire <klaussfreire@gmail.com>
Cc: postgres performance list <pgsql-performance@postgresql.org>
Subject: Re: Shouldn't we have a way to avoid "risky" plans?
Date: Fri, 25 Mar 2011 20:03:17 -0500 (CDT)
Message-ID: <634838041.271503.1301101397390.JavaMail.root@mail-1.01.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <3210.1301063084@sss.pgh.pa.us>
> mergejoinscansel doesn't currently try to fix up the histogram bounds
> by
> consulting indexes. At the time I was afraid of the costs of doing
> that, and I still am; but it would be a way to address this issue.
Oh? Hmmm. I have a ready-made test case for the benefit case on this. However, I'm not clear on how we would test the costs.
But this type of query plan is clearly pathological, and is experienced by users as a performance regression since 8.3. I now have the user doing analyzes of fairly large tables 2/hour to avoid the problem. So I don't think we can leave it alone.
--
Josh Berkus
PostgreSQL Experts Inc.
http://pgexperts.com
San Francisco
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-performance@postgresql.org
Cc: josh@agliodbs.com, tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us, klaussfreire@gmail.com
Subject: Re: Shouldn't we have a way to avoid "risky" plans?
In-Reply-To: <634838041.271503.1301101397390.JavaMail.root@mail-1.01.com>
* 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