On 5/25/17 6:03 AM, Robert Haas wrote:
On Thu, Apr 6, 2017 at 4:37 PM, Tomas Vondra
Which brings me to the slightly suspicious bit. On 9.5, there's no
difference between GROUP and GROUP+LIKE cases - the estimates are exactly
the same in both cases. This is true too, but only without the foreign key
between "partsupp" and "part", i.e. the two non-grouped relations in the
join. And what's more, the difference (1737 vs. 16) is pretty much exactly
100x, which is the estimate for the LIKE condition.
I don't follow this. How does the foreign key between partsupp and
part change the selectivity of LIKE?
So it kinda seems 9.5 does not apply this condition for semi-joins, while
=9.6 does that.
Well, get_foreign_key_join_selectivity() does handle restrictions when
calculating joinrel size estimate in calc_joinrel_size_estimate(), so
assuming there's some thinko it might easily cause this.
I haven't found any such thinko, but I don't dare to claim I fully
understand what the current version of get_foreign_key_join_selectivity
If 9.5 and prior are ignoring some of the quals, that's bad, but I
don't think I understand from your analysis why
7fa93eec4e0c9c3e801e3c51aa4bae3a38aaa218 regressed anything.
It's been quite a bit of time since I looked into this, but I think my
main point was that it's hard to say it's a regression when both the old
and new estimates are so utterly wrong.
I mean, 9.5 estimates 160, 9.6 estimates 18. We might fix the post-9.6
estimate to return the same value as 9.5, and it might fix this
particular query with this particular scale. But in the end it's just
noise considering that the actual value is 120k (so 3 or 4 orders of
Tomas Vondra http://www.2ndQuadrant.com
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (firstname.lastname@example.org)
To make changes to your subscription: