Re: FETCH FIRST clause WITH TIES option - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Tomas Vondra
Subject Re: FETCH FIRST clause WITH TIES option
Date
Msg-id 20190403194059.yqtuuwtsipq2vknh@development
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: FETCH FIRST clause WITH TIES option  (Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>)
List pgsql-hackers
On Wed, Apr 03, 2019 at 03:08:05PM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
>Tomas Vondra <tomas.vondra@2ndquadrant.com> writes:
>> I've tried to fix the merge conflict (essentially by moving some of the
>> code to adjust_limit_rows_costs(), but I'm wondering if the code added to
>> create_limit_path is actually correct
>> ...
>> Firstly, this seriously needs some comment explaining why we do this.
>
>I've not looked at this patch, but TBH I wonder why it is touching
>planner rowcount estimation at all.  I find it doubtful either that
>a correction for WITH TIES would be significant in most use-cases,
>or that we could estimate it accurately if it was significant.
>It certainly doesn't seem like something that needs to be messed
>with in v1 of the feature.
>

FWIW it was me who suggested to tweak the cardinality estimation this way,
but if we want to leave it out from v1, I'm OK with that.


regards

-- 
Tomas Vondra                  http://www.2ndQuadrant.com
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services




pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Tom Lane
Date:
Subject: Re: FETCH FIRST clause WITH TIES option
Next
From: Jesper Pedersen
Date:
Subject: Re: partitioned tables referenced by FKs