On Wed, 23 Mar 2022 at 17:36, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
>
> Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com> writes:
> > On Tue, Jan 25, 2022 at 4:44 AM Peter Eisentraut
> > <peter.eisentraut@enterprisedb.com> wrote:
> >> On the one hand, this smells like a planner hint. But on the other
> >> hand, it doesn't look like we will come up with proper graph-aware
> >> selectivity estimation system any time soon, so just having all graph
> >> OLTP queries suck until then because the planner hint is hardcoded
> >> doesn't seem like a better solution. So I think this setting can be ok.
>
> > I agree. It's a bit lame, but seems pretty harmless, and I can't see
> > us realistically doing a lot better with any reasonable amount of
> > work.
>
> Yeah, agreed on all counts. The thing that makes it lame is that
> there's no reason to expect that the same multiplier is good for
> every recursive query done in an installation, or even in a session.
>
> One could imagine dealing with that by adding custom syntax to WITH,
> as we have already done once:
>
> WITH RECURSIVE cte1 AS SCALE 1.0 (SELECT ...
>
> But I *really* hesitate to go there, mainly because once we do
> something like that we can't ever undo it. I think Simon's
> proposal is a reasonable low-effort compromise.
>
> Some nitpicks:
>
> * The new calculation needs clamp_row_est(), since the float
> GUC could be fractional or even zero.
True, will do.
> * Do we want to prevent the GUC value from being zero? It's not
> very sensible, plus I think we might want to reserve that value
> to mean "use the built-in calculation", in case we ever do put
> in some smarter logic here. But I'm not sure what a reasonable
> non-zero lower bound would be.
Agreed, makes sense.
> * The proposed docs claim that a smaller setting works by biasing
> the planner towards fast-start plans, but I don't think I believe
> that explanation. I'd venture that we want text more along the
> lines of "This may help the planner choose the most appropriate
> method for joining the work table to the query's other tables".
OK, will improve.
[New patch version pending]
--
Simon Riggs http://www.EnterpriseDB.com/
