Re: Fixing some ancient errors in hash join costing
Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
From: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
To: pgsql-hackers@lists.postgresql.org
Date: 2025-12-28T20:15:56Z
Lists: pgsql-hackers
I wrote: > I remain a bit confused by the change in postgres_fdw.out though. > It's deciding to push an ORDER BY down to the remote side when > it didn't before, which seems like an improvement; but I fail to > see how a marginal change in hash join costing would lead to that. > Perhaps that is worth looking into more closely. I dug into that bit today, and concluded that it's a "nothing to see here" case. We are comparing the costs of doing a sort step locally vs remotely --- but if the remote server is identically configured, which it surely is in this test, then cost_sort() will produce the same answers on both sides, and we are comparing path costs that are the same to within roundoff error and cost-quantization effects. My patch does move the underlying semijoin's cost just a hair, and that results in changes in what add_path does with the locally-sorted versus remotely-sorted paths, but really there's no reason to prefer one over the other. I was amused to notice that the postgres_fdw.out change made in my patch reverts one made in aa86129e1 (which also affected semijoin costing). So we've had trouble before with that test case being fundamentally unstable. I wonder if we shouldn't do something to try to stabilize it? I see that the test immediately before this one forces the matter by turning off enable_sort (which'd affect only the local side not the remote). That's a hack all right but maybe we should extend it to this test. regards, tom lane