Re: [HACKERS] Making clausesel.c Smarter

2017-10-02 Thread Daniel Gustafsson
> On 07 Sep 2017, at 09:30, Daniel Gustafsson wrote: > >> On 06 Sep 2017, at 07:13, David Rowley wrote: >> >> On 6 September 2017 at 00:43, Daniel Gustafsson wrote: >>> This patch was moved to the currently open Commitfest.

Re: [HACKERS] Making clausesel.c Smarter

2017-09-07 Thread Daniel Gustafsson
> On 06 Sep 2017, at 07:13, David Rowley wrote: > > On 6 September 2017 at 00:43, Daniel Gustafsson wrote: >> This patch was moved to the currently open Commitfest. Given the above >> comment, is the last patch in this thread still up for review,

Re: [HACKERS] Making clausesel.c Smarter

2017-09-05 Thread David Rowley
On 6 September 2017 at 00:43, Daniel Gustafsson wrote: > This patch was moved to the currently open Commitfest. Given the above > comment, is the last patch in this thread still up for review, or are you > working on a new version? Just to avoid anyone reviewing an outdated

Re: [HACKERS] Making clausesel.c Smarter

2017-09-05 Thread Daniel Gustafsson
> On 09 Apr 2017, at 12:14, David Rowley wrote: > > On 8 April 2017 at 09:33, Claudio Freire wrote: >> Otherwise, the patch LGTM, but I'd like to solve the quadratic >> behavior too... are you going to try? Otherwise I could take a stab at

Re: [HACKERS] Making clausesel.c Smarter

2017-04-09 Thread David Rowley
On 8 April 2017 at 09:33, Claudio Freire wrote: > Otherwise, the patch LGTM, but I'd like to solve the quadratic > behavior too... are you going to try? Otherwise I could take a stab at > it myself. It doesn't seem very difficult. I have some ideas in my head in a fairly

Re: [HACKERS] Making clausesel.c Smarter

2017-04-08 Thread David Steele
On 4/7/17 5:33 PM, Claudio Freire wrote: > > Also, can you add a test case? Cost values could make the test > fragile, so if that gives you trouble I'll understand, but it'd be > best to try and test this if possible. This submission has been moved to CF 2017-07. -- -David da...@pgmasters.net

Re: [HACKERS] Making clausesel.c Smarter

2017-04-07 Thread Claudio Freire
On Fri, Apr 7, 2017 at 2:28 AM, David Rowley wrote: >> + if (rqlist->hibound == DEFAULT_INEQ_SEL || rqlist->lobound == >> DEFAULT_INEQ_SEL) >> + { >> + /* No point in checking null selectivity, DEFAULT_INEQ_SEL >> implies we have no stats */ >> + s2 =

Re: [HACKERS] Making clausesel.c Smarter

2017-04-06 Thread David Rowley
On 4 April 2017 at 13:35, Claudio Freire wrote: > On Mon, Apr 3, 2017 at 9:19 PM, Claudio Freire wrote: > If you ask me, I'd just leave: > > + if (rqlist->hibound == DEFAULT_INEQ_SEL || rqlist->lobound == > DEFAULT_INEQ_SEL) > + { > + /* No

Re: [HACKERS] Making clausesel.c Smarter

2017-04-06 Thread David Rowley
On 7 April 2017 at 09:05, Claudio Freire wrote: > On Tue, Apr 4, 2017 at 1:00 PM, Claudio Freire wrote: If you ask me, I'd just leave: + if (rqlist->hibound == DEFAULT_INEQ_SEL || rqlist->lobound == DEFAULT_INEQ_SEL) + {

Re: [HACKERS] Making clausesel.c Smarter

2017-04-06 Thread Claudio Freire
On Tue, Apr 4, 2017 at 1:00 PM, Claudio Freire wrote: >>> If you ask me, I'd just leave: >>> >>> + if (rqlist->hibound == DEFAULT_INEQ_SEL || rqlist->lobound == >>> DEFAULT_INEQ_SEL) >>> + { >>> + /* No point in checking null selectivity, DEFAULT_INEQ_SEL >>> implies

Re: [HACKERS] Making clausesel.c Smarter

2017-04-04 Thread Claudio Freire
On Tue, Apr 4, 2017 at 8:21 AM, David Rowley wrote: > On 4 April 2017 at 13:35, Claudio Freire wrote: >> On Mon, Apr 3, 2017 at 9:19 PM, Claudio Freire >> wrote: >>> On Mon, Apr 3, 2017 at 8:52 PM, David Rowley >>>

Re: [HACKERS] Making clausesel.c Smarter

2017-04-04 Thread Claudio Freire
On Tue, Apr 4, 2017 at 8:12 AM, David Rowley wrote: > Result Comparison > > Master median tps Patch median tps comparison > Test 1 6993.7 6714.3 104.16% > Test 2 7053.1 6921.6 101.90% > Test 3 5137.2 4954.2 103.69% > Test 4 27.1 19.4 139.72% > Test 5 54.1 51.4

Re: [HACKERS] Making clausesel.c Smarter

2017-04-04 Thread David Rowley
On 3 April 2017 at 20:59, David Rowley wrote: > Updated patch attached. I did a little benchmarking on this to learn how planning time is affected. Master = 9fa6e08d4a16f9b0461743cff35781e16308c106 Patched = 9fa6e08d4a16f9b0461743cff35781e16308c106 +

Re: [HACKERS] Making clausesel.c Smarter

2017-04-04 Thread David Rowley
On 4 April 2017 at 13:35, Claudio Freire wrote: > On Mon, Apr 3, 2017 at 9:19 PM, Claudio Freire wrote: >> On Mon, Apr 3, 2017 at 8:52 PM, David Rowley >> wrote: One last observation: +/* +

Re: [HACKERS] Making clausesel.c Smarter

2017-04-03 Thread Claudio Freire
On Mon, Apr 3, 2017 at 9:19 PM, Claudio Freire wrote: > On Mon, Apr 3, 2017 at 8:52 PM, David Rowley > wrote: >>> One last observation: >>> >>> +/* >>> + * An IS NOT NULL test is a no-op if there's any other strict >>> quals,

Re: [HACKERS] Making clausesel.c Smarter

2017-04-03 Thread Claudio Freire
On Mon, Apr 3, 2017 at 8:52 PM, David Rowley wrote: >> One last observation: >> >> +/* >> + * An IS NOT NULL test is a no-op if there's any other strict quals, >> + * so if that's the case, then we'll only apply this, otherwise >> we'll >> +

Re: [HACKERS] Making clausesel.c Smarter

2017-04-03 Thread David Rowley
On 4 April 2017 at 11:35, Claudio Freire wrote: > I'd prefer it if all occurrences of the concept were changed, to > maintain consistency. > That would include variables used to hold expressions that refer to > these as well, as in the case of: > > +Node

Re: [HACKERS] Making clausesel.c Smarter

2017-04-03 Thread Claudio Freire
On Mon, Apr 3, 2017 at 5:59 AM, David Rowley wrote: >> +static void addCachedSelectivityRangeVar(CachedSelectivityClause >> **cslist, Node *var, >> bool varonleft, bool isLTsel, Selectivity s2); >> >> You're changing clause -> var throughout the code

Re: [HACKERS] Making clausesel.c Smarter

2017-04-03 Thread Claudio Freire
On Mon, Apr 3, 2017 at 6:22 PM, David Rowley wrote: > On 4 April 2017 at 08:24, Andres Freund wrote: >> On 2017-04-03 20:59:42 +1200, David Rowley wrote: >>> Updated patch attached. >>> >>> Thanks for reviewing it. >> >> Given the time in the

Re: [HACKERS] Making clausesel.c Smarter

2017-04-03 Thread Andres Freund
On 2017-04-04 09:22:07 +1200, David Rowley wrote: > On 4 April 2017 at 08:24, Andres Freund wrote: > > On 2017-04-03 20:59:42 +1200, David Rowley wrote: > >> Updated patch attached. > >> > >> Thanks for reviewing it. > > > > Given the time in the release cycle I'm afraid that

Re: [HACKERS] Making clausesel.c Smarter

2017-04-03 Thread David Rowley
On 4 April 2017 at 08:24, Andres Freund wrote: > On 2017-04-03 20:59:42 +1200, David Rowley wrote: >> Updated patch attached. >> >> Thanks for reviewing it. > > Given the time in the release cycle I'm afraid that this it's too late > to get this into v10. Does anybody

Re: [HACKERS] Making clausesel.c Smarter

2017-04-03 Thread Claudio Freire
On Mon, Apr 3, 2017 at 5:24 PM, Andres Freund wrote: > On 2017-04-03 20:59:42 +1200, David Rowley wrote: >> Updated patch attached. >> >> Thanks for reviewing it. > > Given the time in the release cycle I'm afraid that this it's too late > to get this into v10. Does anybody

Re: [HACKERS] Making clausesel.c Smarter

2017-04-03 Thread Andres Freund
On 2017-04-03 20:59:42 +1200, David Rowley wrote: > Updated patch attached. > > Thanks for reviewing it. Given the time in the release cycle I'm afraid that this it's too late to get this into v10. Does anybody disagree? If not, it should be moved to the next CF. Greetings, Andres Freund

Re: [HACKERS] Making clausesel.c Smarter

2017-04-03 Thread David Rowley
On 1 April 2017 at 16:42, Claudio Freire wrote: > > I thought to take a quick look at this patch. I'll probably take a > deeper look later, but some initial comments: > > -typedef struct RangeQueryClause > +typedef struct CachedSelectivityClause > { > -struct

Re: [HACKERS] Making clausesel.c Smarter

2017-03-31 Thread Claudio Freire
On Fri, Feb 24, 2017 at 7:00 AM, David Rowley wrote: > I've stumbled over an interesting query out in the wild where the > query was testing a nullable timestamptz column was earlier than some > point in time, and also checking the column IS NOT NULL. > > The use

Re: [HACKERS] Making clausesel.c Smarter

2017-03-16 Thread Tom Lane
David Steele writes: > Anyone familiar with the planner available to review this patch? FWIW, it's on my radar but I don't expect to get to it real soon, as there's other stuff I deem higher priority. In the meantime, I don't want to stand in the way of someone else looking

Re: [HACKERS] Making clausesel.c Smarter

2017-03-16 Thread David Steele
On 2/26/17 1:41 AM, Robert Haas wrote: > On Fri, Feb 24, 2017 at 3:30 PM, David Rowley > wrote: >> It would be good to improve the situation here in the back branches >> too, but I'm thinking that the attached might be a little invasive for >> that? > > My

Re: [HACKERS] Making clausesel.c Smarter

2017-02-25 Thread Robert Haas
On Fri, Feb 24, 2017 at 3:30 PM, David Rowley wrote: > It would be good to improve the situation here in the back branches > too, but I'm thinking that the attached might be a little invasive for > that? My experience has been that customers - at least EnterpriseDB

[HACKERS] Making clausesel.c Smarter

2017-02-24 Thread David Rowley
I've stumbled over an interesting query out in the wild where the query was testing a nullable timestamptz column was earlier than some point in time, and also checking the column IS NOT NULL. The use pattern here was that records which required processing had this timestamp set to something