Robert Haas <robertmh...@gmail.com> writes:
> On Wed, Mar 16, 2016 at 2:02 PM, Tom Lane <t...@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
>> Looks pretty close. One point is that if we do end up using a Result
>> node, then the parent GatherPath does not get charged for the Result
>> node's cpu_per_tuple overhead. I'm not sure that that's worth changing
>> though. It's probably better to bet that the subpath is projectable and
>> so no cost will ensue, than to bet the other way.
> I'm almost sure this way is the better bet.
Actually, we do know what will happen ... so maybe
/*
* We always use create_projection_path here, even if the subpath is
* projection-capable, so as to avoid modifying the subpath in place.
* It seems unlikely at present that there could be any other
* references to the subpath anyway, but better safe than sorry.
*/
+ if (!is_projection_capable_path(gpath->subpath))
+ gpath->path.total_cost += cpu_tuple_cost * gpath->subpath->rows;
gpath->subpath = (Path *)
create_projection_path(root,
gpath->subpath->parent,
gpath->subpath,
target);
The comment could use adjustment if you adopt that, to reference the fact
that we know create_projection_plan will get rid of the Result if not
needed.
regards, tom lane
--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
