Re: FETCH FIRST clause WITH TIES option
Tomas Vondra <tomas.vondra@2ndquadrant.com>
From: Tomas Vondra <tomas.vondra@2ndquadrant.com>
To: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Cc: Surafel Temesgen <surafel3000@gmail.com>, David Steele <david@pgmasters.net>, Michael Paquier <michael@paquier.xyz>, Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com>, andrew@tao11.riddles.org.uk, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org>
Date: 2019-04-03T19:40:59Z
Lists: pgsql-hackers
On Wed, Apr 03, 2019 at 03:08:05PM -0400, Tom Lane wrote: >Tomas Vondra <tomas.vondra@2ndquadrant.com> writes: >> I've tried to fix the merge conflict (essentially by moving some of the >> code to adjust_limit_rows_costs(), but I'm wondering if the code added to >> create_limit_path is actually correct >> ... >> Firstly, this seriously needs some comment explaining why we do this. > >I've not looked at this patch, but TBH I wonder why it is touching >planner rowcount estimation at all. I find it doubtful either that >a correction for WITH TIES would be significant in most use-cases, >or that we could estimate it accurately if it was significant. >It certainly doesn't seem like something that needs to be messed >with in v1 of the feature. > FWIW it was me who suggested to tweak the cardinality estimation this way, but if we want to leave it out from v1, I'm OK with that. regards -- Tomas Vondra http://www.2ndQuadrant.com PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services
Commits
-
Support FETCH FIRST WITH TIES
- 357889eb17bb 13.0 landed