On Tue, May 07, 2019 at 10:42:36AM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
>Tomas Vondra <tomas.vondra@2ndquadrant.com> writes:
>> On Mon, May 06, 2019 at 11:18:28PM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
>>> Tomas Vondra <tomas.vondra@2ndquadrant.com> writes:
>>>> Do we actually check how many duplicates are there during planning?
>
>>> Certainly that's part of the planner's cost estimates ... but it's
>>> only as good as the planner's statistical knowledge.
>
>> I'm looking at the code, and the only place where I see code dealing with
>> MCVs (probably the best place for info about duplicate values) is
>> estimate_hash_bucketsize in final_cost_hashjoin.
>
>What I'm thinking of is this bit in final_cost_hashjoin:
>
> /*
> * If the bucket holding the inner MCV would exceed work_mem, we don't
> * want to hash unless there is really no other alternative, so apply
> * disable_cost. (The executor normally copes with excessive memory usage
> * by splitting batches, but obviously it cannot separate equal values
> * that way, so it will be unable to drive the batch size below work_mem
> * when this is true.)
> */
> if (relation_byte_size(clamp_row_est(inner_path_rows * innermcvfreq),
> inner_path->pathtarget->width) >
> (work_mem * 1024L))
> startup_cost += disable_cost;
>
>It's certainly likely that that logic needs improvement in view of this
>discussion --- I was just pushing back on the claim that we weren't
>considering the issue at all.
>
Ah, this code is new in 11, and I was looking at code from 10 for some
reason. I don't think we can do much better than this, except perhaps
falling back to (1/ndistinct) when there's no MCV available.
regards
--
Tomas Vondra http://www.2ndQuadrant.com
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services
