Updating row and width estimates in postgres_fdw - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Ashutosh Bapat
Subject Updating row and width estimates in postgres_fdw
Date
Msg-id CAExHW5tjTOMGnYA6-Wz87YBsDqC4pAAB7OAq03h2Wt_x3P3zqw@mail.gmail.com
Whole thread Raw
Responses Re: Updating row and width estimates in postgres_fdw
List pgsql-hackers
Hi,
In postgresGetForeignJoinPaths(), I see

   /* Estimate costs for bare join relation */
    estimate_path_cost_size(root, joinrel, NIL, NIL, NULL,
                            &rows, &width, &startup_cost, &total_cost);
    /* Now update this information in the joinrel */
    joinrel->rows = rows;
    joinrel->reltarget->width = width;

This code is good as well as bad.

For a join relation, we estimate the number of rows in set_joinrel_size_estimates() inside build_*_join_rel() and set the width of the join when building the targetlist. For foreign join, the size estimates may not be correct but width estimate should be. So updating the number of rows looks good since it would be better than what set_joinrel_size_etimates() might come up with but here are the problems with this code
1. The rows estimated by estimate_path_cost_size() are better only when use_remote_estimates is true. So, we should be doing this only when use_remote_estimate is true.
2. This function gets called after local paths for the first pair for this join have been added. So those paths are not being judged fairly and perhaps we might be throwing away better paths just because the local estimates with which they were created were very different from the remote estimates.

A better way would be to get the estimates and setup fpinfo for a joinrel in build_join_rel() and later add paths similar to what we do for base relations. That means we split the current hook GetForeignJoinPaths into two - one to get estimates and the other to setup fpinfo.

Comments?
--
Best Wishes,
Ashutosh Bapat

pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Shichao Jin
Date:
Subject: Re: Memory-comparable Serialization of Data Types
Next
From: Alvaro Herrera
Date:
Subject: Re: Just for fun: Postgres 20?