On 8/18/21 3:16 PM, Mark Dilger wrote:
>
>
>> On Aug 18, 2021, at 3:43 AM, Tomas Vondra
>> <tomas.vondra@enterprisedb.com> wrote:
>>
>> I've pushed everything (generator and results) to this github repo
>
> Thanks for the link. I took a very brief look. Perhaps we can
> combine efforts. I need to make progress on several other patches
> first, but hope to get back to this.
>
Sure - it'd be great to combine efforts. That's why I posted my scripts
& results. I understand there's plenty other work for both of us, so
take your time - no rush.
After looking at this for a while, it's clear the main issue is handling
of clauses referencing the same Var twice, like for example (a = a) or
(a < a). But it's not clear to me if this is something worth fixing, or
if extended statistics is the right place to do it.
If those clauses are worth the effort, why not to handle them better
even without extended statistics? We can easily evaluate these clauses
on per-column MCV, because they only reference a single Var.
It'd be rather strange if for example
select * from t where (a < a)
is mis-estimated simply because it can't use extended statistics
(there's just a single Var, so we won't consider extended stats), while
select * from t where (a < a) and b = 1
suddenly gets much better thanks to extended stats on (a,b), even when
(a,b) are perfectly independent.
So I think we better make eqsel/ineqsel smarter about estimating those
clauses, assuming we consider them important enough.
I think we can either reject the patch, which would mean we don't
consider (Var op Var) clauses to be common/important enough. Or we need
to improve the existing selectivity functions (even those without
extended statistics) to handle those clauses in a smarter way. Otherwise
there'd be strange/surprising inconsistencies.
regards
--
Tomas Vondra
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
