Re: [HACKERS] PATCH: multivariate histograms and MCV lists
Tomas Vondra <tomas.vondra@2ndquadrant.com>
From: Tomas Vondra <tomas.vondra@2ndquadrant.com>
To: Dean Rasheed <dean.a.rasheed@gmail.com>,
David Rowley <david.rowley@2ndquadrant.com>
Cc: Kyotaro HORIGUCHI <horiguchi.kyotaro@lab.ntt.co.jp>,
Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@2ndquadrant.com>,
Michael Paquier <michael@paquier.xyz>, Andres Freund <andres@anarazel.de>,
Thomas Munro <thomas.munro@enterprisedb.com>,
Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us>, Mark Dilger <hornschnorter@gmail.com>,
PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org>
Date: 2019-03-25T23:39:55Z
Lists: pgsql-hackers
On 3/24/19 8:36 AM, Dean Rasheed wrote: > On Sun, 24 Mar 2019 at 00:17, David Rowley <david.rowley@2ndquadrant.com> wrote: >> >> On Sun, 24 Mar 2019 at 12:41, Tomas Vondra <tomas.vondra@2ndquadrant.com> wrote: >>> >>> On 3/21/19 4:05 PM, David Rowley wrote: >> >>>> 29. Looking at the tests I see you're testing that you get bad >>>> estimates without extended stats. That does not really seem like >>>> something that should be done in tests that are meant for extended >>>> statistics. >>>> >>> >>> True, it might be a bit unnecessary. Initially the tests were meant to >>> show old/new estimates for development purposes, but it might not be >>> appropriate for regression tests. I don't think it's a big issue, it's >>> not like it'd slow down the tests significantly. Opinions? >> >> My thoughts were that if someone did something to improve non-MV >> stats, then is it right for these tests to fail? What should the >> developer do in the case? update the expected result? remove the test? >> It's not so clear. >> > > I think the tests are fine as they are. Don't think of these as "good" > and "bad" estimates. They should both be "good" estimates, but under > different assumptions -- one assuming no correlation between columns, > and one taking into account the relationship between the columns. If > someone does do something to "improve" the non-MV stats, then the > former tests ought to tell us whether it really was an improvement. If > so, then the test result can be updated and perhaps whatever was done > ought to be factored into the MV-stats' calculation of base > frequencies. If not, the test is providing valuable feedback that > perhaps it wasn't such a good improvement after all. > Yeah, I agree. I'm sure there are ways to further simplify (or otherwise improve) the tests, but I think those tests are useful to demonstrate what the "baseline" estimates are. regards -- Tomas Vondra http://www.2ndQuadrant.com PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services
Commits
-
Convert pre-existing stats_ext tests to new style
- dbb984128ebf 12.0 landed
-
Add support for multivariate MCV lists
- 7300a699502f 12.0 landed
-
Improve ANALYZE's strategy for finding MCVs.
- b5db1d93d2a6 11.0 cited
-
Clone extended stats in CREATE TABLE (LIKE INCLUDING ALL)
- 5564c1181548 11.0 cited
-
Try again to fix accumulation of parallel worker instrumentation.
- 8526bcb2df76 11.0 cited
-
Adjust psql \d query to avoid use of @> operator.
- 471d55859c11 11.0 cited
-
Message style fixes
- 821fb8cdbf70 11.0 cited
-
Add security checks to selectivity estimation functions
- e2d4ef8de869 10.0 cited