.On Thu, 13 Apr 2023 at 02:28, Andy Fan <zhihui.fan1...@gmail.com> wrote:
> The concept of startup_tuples for a WindowAgg looks good to me, but I
> can't follow up with the below line:
>
> + return clamp_row_est(partition_tuples * DEFAULT_INEQ_SEL);
>
> # select count(*) over() from tenk1 limit 1;
> count
> -------
> 10000 --> We need to scan all the tuples.
>
> Should we just return clamp_row_est(partition_tuples)?
For the case you've shown, it will. It's handled by this code:
if (wc->orderClause == NIL)
return clamp_row_est(partition_tuples);
It would take something like the following to hit the code you're
concerned about:
explain select count(*) over(order by unique1 rows between unbounded
preceding and 10*random() following) from tenk1;
QUERY PLAN
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
WindowAgg (cost=140.23..420.29 rows=10000 width=12)
-> Index Only Scan using tenk1_unique1 on tenk1
(cost=0.29..270.29 rows=10000 width=4)
(2 rows)
You can see the startup cost is about 33% of the total cost for that,
which is from the DEFAULT_INEQ_SEL. I'm not exactly set on that
having to be DEFAULT_INEQ_SEL, but I'm not really sure what we could
put that's better. I don't really follow why assuming all rows are
required is better. That'll just mean we favour cheap startup plans
less, but there might be a case where a cheap startup plan is
favourable. I was opting for a happy medium when I thought to use
DEFAULT_INEQ_SEL.
I also see I might need to do a bit more work on this as the following
is not handled correctly:
select count(*) over(rows between unbounded preceding and 10
following) from tenk1;
it's assuming all rows due to lack of ORDER BY, but it seems like it
should be 10 rows due to the 10 FOLLOWING end bound.
David
