Re: On disable_cost
Laurenz Albe <laurenz.albe@cybertec.at>
From: Laurenz Albe <laurenz.albe@cybertec.at>
To: David Rowley <dgrowleyml@gmail.com>
Cc: Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com>, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>,
Heikki Linnakangas <hlinnaka@iki.fi>, Peter Geoghegan <pg@bowt.ie>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers@lists.postgresql.org>
Date: 2024-10-02T18:04:08Z
Lists: pgsql-hackers
On Wed, 2024-10-02 at 21:55 +1300, David Rowley wrote:
> On Tue, 1 Oct 2024 at 06:17, Laurenz Albe <laurenz.albe@cybertec.at> wrote:
> > Why did you change "Disabled" from an integer to a boolean?
>
> I just don't think "Disabled Nodes" is all that self-documenting and
> I'm also unsure why the full integer value of disabled_nodes is
> required over just displaying the boolean value of if the node is
> disabled or not. Won't readers look at the remainder of the plan to
> determine information about which other nodes are disabled? Do we need
> to give them a running total?
I didn't want a running total, but maybe I misunderstood what a disabled
node is; see below.
> > If you see a join where two plans were disabled, that's useful information.
>
> I'm not sure if I follow what you mean here. The patch will show
> "Disabled: true" for both the inner and outer side of the join if both
> of those are disabled. The difference is that my patch does not show
> the join itself is disabled like master does. I thought that's what
> you were complaining about. Can you show an example of what you mean?
I ran the following example, and now I am confused.
CREATE TABLE tab_a (id integer);
CREATE TABLE tab_b (id integer);
SET enable_nestloop = off;
SET enable_hashjoin = off;
EXPLAIN SELECT * FROM tab_a JOIN tab_b USING (id);
QUERY PLAN
═════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
Merge Join (cost=359.57..860.00 rows=32512 width=4)
Merge Cond: (tab_a.id = tab_b.id)
-> Sort (cost=179.78..186.16 rows=2550 width=4)
Sort Key: tab_a.id
-> Seq Scan on tab_a (cost=0.00..35.50 rows=2550 width=4)
-> Sort (cost=179.78..186.16 rows=2550 width=4)
Sort Key: tab_b.id
-> Seq Scan on tab_b (cost=0.00..35.50 rows=2550 width=4)
I would have expected to see "Disabled nodes: 2" with the merge join,
because both the nested loop join and the hash join have been disabled.
Why is there no disabled node shown?
Yours,
Laurenz Albe
Commits
-
Doc: add detail about EXPLAIN's "Disabled" property
- 84b8fccbe5c2 18.0 landed
-
Adjust EXPLAIN's output for disabled nodes
- 161320b4b960 18.0 landed
-
Fix order of parameters in a cost_sort call
- 87b6c3c0b703 18.0 landed
-
Show number of disabled nodes in EXPLAIN ANALYZE output.
- c01743aa4866 18.0 landed
-
Treat number of disabled nodes in a path as a separate cost metric.
- e22253467942 18.0 landed
-
Remove grotty use of disable_cost for TID scan plans.
- e4326fbc60c4 18.0 landed