I don't have any background with the randomized search. Does the repeated pattern with the same plan being executed multiple times in a time range and then the plan changes, never to change back, match the expectation with the randomization?
Jerry Brenner <jbrenner@guidewire.com> writes: > We are on Postgres 15.5 (Aurora) and capturing query plans via > auto_explain. We are seeing a large number of query plans for 2 queries > that have 12 tables. Every fast (or "fast enough") plan has a left deep > tree and every slow plan has a bushy tree. Is there a way to determine if > a plan was generated by GECO?
> We have from_collapse_limit, join_collapse_limit and geqo_threshold all set > to 12.
If there are 12 tables used in the query, then setting the collapse limits to 12 would allow the join search to be collapsed into a single problem, and then it would *always* go to GEQO because we invoke GEQO if the join problem involves >= geqo_threshold tables. You might want to rethink having those settings equal to each other.
> I've manually explained plans and haven't seen the problem,
My guess is that GEQO usually finds one of the better plans, but when its randomized search is particularly unlucky it fails to. Try bumping geqo_threshold to more than 12, and note whether that results in unacceptable planning time for these queries. If not, leave it at the higher value.
