Re: The issue of incorrect width estimation in UNION queries
David Rowley <dgrowleyml@gmail.com>
From: David Rowley <dgrowleyml@gmail.com>
To: "sunw.fnst" <936739278@qq.com>
Cc: pgsql-bugs <pgsql-bugs@lists.postgresql.org>
Date: 2025-09-29T01:50:19Z
Lists: pgsql-bugs
Commits
Same data as JSON:
GET /api/v1/messages/:b64id/commits
the thread's linked commits as JSON, with link sources.
API reference →
-
Improve planner's width estimates for set operations
- 2cb49c609bd9 19 (unreleased) landed
On Fri, 26 Sept 2025 at 09:42, David Rowley <dgrowleyml@gmail.com> wrote: > Here's an updated patch which includes adjusting the width estimate > for generate_nonunion_paths() too. > > I gave a bit of thought to how that should work for EXCEPT and > INTERSECT and concluded that for EXCEPT, we should take the width > estimate for the left-hand child, as no rows from the right-child will > be used. For INTERSECT, I couldn't think of anything better than > taking the weighted average of both children, the same as UNION. Of > course, only the rows which exist in both will make the final result, > but I don't see any way to do anything smart with a single width > estimate for each child. I looked at this again today. All seems fairly trivial and not too dissimilar to what happens in set_append_rel_size(). I did consider if it should be done by having some special varno for setops and then have get_expr_width() to something better, but I don't see how that would work exactly. In any case, that would be way more complex than what I did. With some more adjustments to the comments, I pushed the v1 patch. David