Re: Costing elided SubqueryScans more nearly correctly - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Richard Guo
Subject Re: Costing elided SubqueryScans more nearly correctly
Date
Msg-id CAMbWs4-LSbUb_xL28gPtZ1o7gvtG7KO6AzaqAeC2id=usmrL1g@mail.gmail.com
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: Costing elided SubqueryScans more nearly correctly  (Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>)
Responses Re: Costing elided SubqueryScans more nearly correctly
List pgsql-hackers

On Thu, May 5, 2022 at 7:03 AM Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
I wrote:
> I instrumented the code in setrefs.c, and found that during the
> core regression tests this patch estimates correctly in 2103
> places while guessing wrongly in 54, so that seems like a pretty
> good step forward.

On second thought, that's not a terribly helpful summary.  Breaking
things down to the next level, there were

   1088 places where we correctly guessed a subquery isn't trivial
        (so no change from current behavior, which is correct)

   1015 places where we correctly guessed a subquery is trivial
        (hence, improving the cost estimate from before)

     40 places where we incorrectly guessed a subquery isn't trivial
        (so no change from current behavior, although that's wrong)

     14 places where we incorrectly guessed a subquery is trivial
        (hence, incorrectly charging zero for the SubqueryScan)

1015 improvements to 14 disimprovements isn't a bad score.  I'm
a bit surprised there are that many removable SubqueryScans TBH;
maybe that's an artifact of all the "SELECT *" queries.

The patch looks sane to me. 1015 vs 14 is a good win.

Thanks
Richard

pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Pavel Stehule
Date:
Subject: Re: strange slow query - lost lot of time somewhere
Next
From: Bharath Rupireddy
Date:
Subject: Re: Add WAL recovery messages with log_wal_traffic GUC (was: add recovery, backup, archive, streaming etc. activity messages to server logs along with ps display)