Hi, Thanks for taking a look.
> On Dec 2, 2025, at 13:36, Dilip Kumar <[email protected]> wrote: > > Is pgbench the right workload to test this, I mean what are we trying > to compare here the planning time taken by DP vs GEQO vs GOO or the > quality of the plans generated by different join ordering algorithms > or both? All pgbench queries are single table scans and there is no > involvement of the join search, so I am not sure how we can justify > these gains? Just to clarify: as noted in the cover mail, the numbers are not from default pgbench queries, but from the star-join / snowflake workloads in thread [1], using the benchmark included in the v5-0001 patch. These workloads contain multi-table joins and do trigger join search; you can reproduce them by configuring the GUCs as described in the cover mail. The benchmark tables contain no data, so execution time is negligible; the results mainly reflect planning time of the different join-ordering methods, which is intentional for this microbenchmark. A broader evaluation on TPC-H / TPC-DS / JOB is TODO, covering both planning time and plan quality. That should provide a more representative picture of GOO, beyond this synthetic setup. References: [1] Star/snowflake join thread and benchmarks: https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/a22ec6e0-92ae-43e7-85c1-587df2a65f51%40vondra.me -- Best regards, Chengpeng Yan
