Re: Add estimated hit ratio to Memoize in EXPLAIN to explain cost adjustment - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Daniel Gustafsson
Subject Re: Add estimated hit ratio to Memoize in EXPLAIN to explain cost adjustment
Date
Msg-id 51A15CD7-E31B-483D-B911-D0EB9F5FF952@yesql.se
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: Add estimated hit ratio to Memoize in EXPLAIN to explain cost adjustment  (David Rowley <dgrowleyml@gmail.com>)
Responses Re: Add estimated hit ratio to Memoize in EXPLAIN to explain cost adjustment  (Lukas Fittl <lukas@fittl.com>)
List pgsql-hackers
> On 7 Mar 2023, at 10:51, David Rowley <dgrowleyml@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On Sun, 5 Mar 2023 at 13:21, Lukas Fittl <lukas@fittl.com> wrote:
>> Alternatively (or in addition) we could consider showing the "ndistinct" value that is calculated in
cost_memoize_rescan- since that's the most significant contributor to the cache hit ratio (and you can influence that
directlyby improving the ndistinct statistics). 
>
> I think the ndistinct estimate plus the est_entries together would be
> useful. I think showing just the hit ratio number might often just
> raise too many questions about how that's calculated. To calculate the
> hit ratio we need to estimate the number of entries that can be kept
> in the cache at once and also the number of input rows and the number
> of distinct values.  We can see the input rows by looking at the outer
> side of the join in EXPLAIN, but we've no idea about the ndistinct or
> how many items the planner thought could be kept in the cache at once.
>
> The plan node already has est_entries, so it should just be a matter
> of storing the ndistinct estimate in the Path and putting it into the
> Plan node so the executor has access to it during EXPLAIN.

Lukas: do you have an updated patch for this commitfest to address David's
comments?

--
Daniel Gustafsson




pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Jeff Davis
Date:
Subject: Re: pgsql: Fix search_path to a safe value during maintenance operations.
Next
From: Peter Eisentraut
Date:
Subject: Re: Exclusion constraints on partitioned tables