Re: Problems with plan estimates in postgres_fdw - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

Etsuro Fujita <fujita.etsuro@lab.ntt.co.jp> wrote:

> (2019/02/12 18:03), Antonin Houska wrote:
> > Etsuro Fujita<fujita.etsuro@lab.ntt.co.jp>  wrote:
> >> (2019/02/08 2:04), Antonin Houska wrote:
> >>>
> >>> And maybe related problem: why should FDW care about the effect of
> >>> apply_scanjoin_target_to_paths() like you claim to do here?
> >>>
> >>>     /*
> >>>      * If this is UPPERREL_ORDERED and/or UPPERREL_FINAL steps on the
> >>>      * final scan/join relation, the costs obtained from the cache
> >>>      * wouldn't yet contain the eval cost for the final scan/join target,
> >>>      * which would have been updated by apply_scanjoin_target_to_paths();
> >>>      * add the eval cost now.
> >>>      */
> >>>     if (fpextra&&   !IS_UPPER_REL(foreignrel))
> >>>     {
> >>>         /* The costs should have been obtained from the cache. */
> >>>         Assert(fpinfo->rel_startup_cost>= 0&&
> >>>             fpinfo->rel_total_cost>= 0);
> >>>
> >>>         startup_cost += foreignrel->reltarget->cost.startup;
> >>>         run_cost += foreignrel->reltarget->cost.per_tuple * rows;
> >>>     }
> >>>
> >>> I think it should not, whether "foreignrel" means "input_rel" or "output_rel"
> >>> from the perspective of postgresGetForeignUpperPaths().
> >>
> >> I added this before costing the sort operation below, because 1) the cost of
> >> evaluating the scan/join target might not be zero (consider the case where
> >> sort columns are not simple Vars, for example) and 2) the cost of sorting
> >> takes into account the underlying path's startup/total costs.  Maybe I'm
> >> missing something, though.
> >
> > My understanding is that the "input_rel" argument of
> > postgresGetForeignUpperPaths() should already have been processed by
> > postgresGetForeignPaths() or postgresGetForeignJoinPaths() (or actually by
> > postgresGetForeignUpperPaths() called with different "stage" too). Therefore
> > it should already have the "fdw_private" field initialized. The estimates in
> > the corresponding PgFdwRelationInfo should already include the reltarget
> > costs, as set previously by estimate_path_cost_size().
>
> Right, but what I'm saying here is: the costs of evaluating the final
> scan/join target updated by apply_scanjoin_target_to_paths() wouldn't be yet
> included in the costs we calculated using local statistics when called from
> postgresGetForeignPaths() or postgresGetForeignJoinPaths(). Let me explain
> using an example:
>
>     SELECT a+b FROM foreign_table LIMIT 10;
>
> For this query, the reltarget for the foreign_table would be {a, b} when
> called from postgresGetForeignPaths() (see build_base_rel_tlists()). The costs
> of evaluating simple Vars are zeroes, so we wouldn't charge any costs for
> tlist evaluation when estimating the costs of a basic foreign table scan in
> that callback routine, but the final scan target, with which the reltarget
> will be replaced later by apply_scanjoin_target_to_paths(), would be {a+b}, so
> we need to adjust the costs of the basic foreign table scan, cached in the
> PgFdwRelationInfo for the input_rel (ie, the foreign_table), so that eval
> costs for the replaced tlist are included when called from
> postgresGetForeignUpperPaths() with the UPPERREL_FINAL stage, as the costs of
> evaluating the expression 'a+b' wouldn't be zeroes.

ok, I understand now. I assume that the patch

https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/5C66A056.60007%40lab.ntt.co.jp

obsoletes the code snippet we discussed above.

--
Antonin Houska
Cybertec Schönig & Schönig GmbH
Gröhrmühlgasse 26, A-2700 Wiener Neustadt
Web: https://www.cybertec-postgresql.com