Re: BRIN index which is much faster never chosen by planner - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Michael Lewis
Subject Re: BRIN index which is much faster never chosen by planner
Date
Msg-id CAHOFxGoge0hjTZrvsj92rZz6+OqVw+4UojV5xKFm2_vHgF2D_g@mail.gmail.com
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: BRIN index which is much faster never chosen by planner  (David Rowley <david.rowley@2ndquadrant.com>)
Responses Re: BRIN index which is much faster never chosen by planner
List pgsql-hackers


On Thu, Oct 10, 2019 at 6:22 PM David Rowley <david.rowley@2ndquadrant.com> wrote:
The planner might be able to get a better estimate on the number of
matching rows if the now() - interval '10 days' expression was
replaced with 'now'::timestamptz - interval '10 days'. However, care
would need to be taken to ensure the plan is never prepared since
'now' is evaluated during parse. The same care must be taken when
creating views, functions, stored procedures and the like.

The planner will just estimate the selectivity of now() - interval '10
days'  by using DEFAULT_INEQ_SEL, which is 0.3333333333333333, so it
thinks it'll get 1/3rd of the table.  Using 'now' will allow the
planner to lookup actual statistics on that column which will likely
give a much better estimate, which by the looks of it, likely will
result in one of those BRIN index being used.

This surprised me a bit, and would have significant implications. I tested a few different tables in our system and get the same row count estimate with either WHERE condition. Perhaps I am missing a critical piece of what you said.

explain
select * from charges where posted_on > now() - interval '10 days';

explain
select * from charges where posted_on > 'now'::timestamptz  - interval '10 days';

pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Masahiko Sawada
Date:
Subject: Re: maintenance_work_mem used by Vacuum
Next
From: Craig Ringer
Date:
Subject: Re: let's make the list of reportable GUCs configurable (was Re: Add%r substitution for psql prompts to show recovery status)