Justin Pryzby <pryzby@telsasoft.com> writes:
> On Mon, Dec 30, 2019 at 09:05:24AM -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
>> Uh, what? This seems completely wrong to me. We could possibly
>> promote DT_NOBEGIN and DT_NOEND to +/- infinity (not NaN), but
>> I don't really see the point. They'll compare to other timestamp
>> values correctly without that, cf timestamp_cmp_internal().
>> The example you give seems to me to be working sanely, or at least
>> as sanely as it can given the number of histogram points available,
>> with the existing code. In any case, shoving NaNs into the
>> computation is not going to make anything better.
> As I see it, the problem is that the existing code tests for isnan(), but
> infinite timestamps are PG_INT64_MIN/MAX (here, stored in a double), so there's
> absurdly large values being used as if they were isnormal().
I still say that (1) you're confusing NaN with Infinity, and (2)
you haven't actually shown that there's a problem to fix.
These endpoint values are *not* NaNs.
> On v12, my test gives:
> |DROP TABLE t; CREATE TABLE t(t) AS SELECT generate_series(now(), now()+'1 day', '5 minutes');
> |INSERT INTO t VALUES('-infinity');
> |ALTER TABLE t ALTER t SET STATISTICS 1; ANALYZE t;
> |explain analyze SELECT * FROM t WHERE t>='2010-12-29';
> | Seq Scan on t (cost=0.00..5.62 rows=3 width=8) (actual time=0.012..0.042 rows=289 loops=1)
This is what it should do. There's only one histogram bucket, and
it extends down to -infinity, so the conclusion is going to be that
the WHERE clause excludes all but a small part of the bucket. This
is the correct answer based on the available stats; the problem is
not with the calculation, but with the miserable granularity of the
available stats.
> vs patched master:
> |DROP TABLE t; CREATE TABLE t(t) AS SELECT generate_series(now(), now()+'1 day', '5 minutes');
> |INSERT INTO t VALUES('-infinity');
> |ALTER TABLE t ALTER t SET STATISTICS 1; ANALYZE t;
> |explain analyze SELECT * FROM t WHERE t>='2010-12-29';
> | Seq Scan on t (cost=0.00..5.62 rows=146 width=8) (actual time=0.048..0.444 rows=289 loops=1)
This answer is simply broken. You've caused it to estimate half
of the bucket, which is an insane estimate for the given bucket
boundaries and WHERE constraint.
> IMO 146 rows is a reasonable estimate given a single histogram bucket of
> infinite width,
No, it isn't.
regards, tom lane
