Peter Geoghegan <pg@bowt.ie> writes:
> On Mon, Jun 21, 2021 at 10:14 AM Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com> wrote:
>> The other thing is - the risk of a particular path doesn't matter in
>> an absolute sense, only a relative one. In the particular case I'm on
>> about here, we *know* there's a less-risky alternative.
> Exactly! This, a thousand times.
This is a striking oversimplification.
You're ignoring the fact that the plan shape we generate now is in fact
*optimal*, and easily proven to be so, in some very common cases. I don't
think the people whose use-cases get worse are going to be mollified by
the argument that you reduced their risk, when there is provably no risk.
Obviously the people whose use-cases are currently hitting the wrong end
of the risk will be happy with any change whatever, but those may not be
the same people.
I'm willing to take some flak if there's not an easy proof that the outer
scan is single-row, but I don't think we should just up and change it
for cases where there is.
regards, tom lane
