Re: Costing elided SubqueryScans more nearly correctly - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Tom Lane
Subject Re: Costing elided SubqueryScans more nearly correctly
Date
Msg-id 2585759.1651705377@sss.pgh.pa.us
Whole thread Raw
In response to Costing elided SubqueryScans more nearly correctly  (Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>)
Responses Re: Costing elided SubqueryScans more nearly correctly
List pgsql-hackers
I wrote:
> I instrumented the code in setrefs.c, and found that during the
> core regression tests this patch estimates correctly in 2103
> places while guessing wrongly in 54, so that seems like a pretty
> good step forward.

On second thought, that's not a terribly helpful summary.  Breaking
things down to the next level, there were

   1088 places where we correctly guessed a subquery isn't trivial
    (so no change from current behavior, which is correct)

   1015 places where we correctly guessed a subquery is trivial
    (hence, improving the cost estimate from before)

     40 places where we incorrectly guessed a subquery isn't trivial
        (so no change from current behavior, although that's wrong)

     14 places where we incorrectly guessed a subquery is trivial
    (hence, incorrectly charging zero for the SubqueryScan)

1015 improvements to 14 disimprovements isn't a bad score.  I'm
a bit surprised there are that many removable SubqueryScans TBH;
maybe that's an artifact of all the "SELECT *" queries.

            regards, tom lane



pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Tom Lane
Date:
Subject: Costing elided SubqueryScans more nearly correctly
Next
From: Peter Geoghegan
Date:
Subject: Re: Atomic GetFreeIndexPage()?