On Thu, Sep 29, 2022 at 7:32 AM Benjamin Coutu <ben.coutu@zeyos.com> wrote:
> Also, we can expand the multiplier whenever we fall back to using the default cardinality constant as surely all bets
areoff at that point - we should definitely treat nested loop joins as out of favor in this instance and that could
easilybe incorporated by simply increasing the conviction-mutliplier.
>
> What are your thoughts on this simple idea - is it perhaps too simple?
Offhand I'd say it's more likely to be too complicated. Without
meaning to sound glib, the first question that occurs to me is "will
we also need a conviction multiplier conviction multiplier?". Anything
like that is going to have unintended consequences that might very
well be much worse than the problem that you set out to solve.
Personally I still like the idea of just avoiding unparameterized
nested loop joins altogether when an "equivalent" hash join plan is
available. I think of it as preferring the hash join plan because it
will have virtually the same performance characteristics when you have
a good cardinality estimate (probably very often), but far better
performance characteristics when you don't. We can perhaps be
approximately 100% sure that something like that will be true in all
cases, no matter the details. That seems like a very different concept
to what you've proposed.
--
Peter Geoghegan
