Re: [HACKERS] CLUSTER command progress monitor - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Tom Lane
Subject Re: [HACKERS] CLUSTER command progress monitor
Date
Msg-id 16114.1511198753@sss.pgh.pa.us
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: [HACKERS] CLUSTER command progress monitor  (Antonin Houska <ah@cybertec.at>)
Responses Re: [HACKERS] CLUSTER command progress monitor  (Antonin Houska <ah@cybertec.at>)
Re: [HACKERS] CLUSTER command progress monitor  (Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com>)
List pgsql-hackers
Antonin Houska <ah@cybertec.at> writes:
> Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com> wrote:
>> These two phases overlap, though. I believe progress reporting for
>> sorts is really hard.

> Whatever complexity is hidden in the sort, cost_sort() should have taken it
> into consideration when called via plan_cluster_use_sort(). Thus I think that
> once we have both startup and total cost, the current progress of the sort
> stage can be estimated from the current number of input and output
> rows. Please remind me if my proposal appears to be too simplistic.

Well, even if you assume that the planner's cost model omits nothing
(which I wouldn't bet on), its result is only going to be as good as the
planner's estimate of the number of rows to be sorted.  And, in cases
where people actually care about progress monitoring, it's likely that
the planner got that wrong, maybe horribly so.  I think it's a bad idea
for progress monitoring to depend on the planner's estimates in any way
whatsoever.
        regards, tom lane


pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Antonin Houska
Date:
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] CLUSTER command progress monitor
Next
From: Martín Marqués
Date:
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] pg_basebackup --progress output for batch execution