On Tue, Nov 4, 2025 at 3:43 PM Andrei Lepikhov <lepihov@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 4/11/2025 08:44, Richard Guo wrote:
> > Any thoughts?The first patch looks good, but I still have a couple of questions.
> 1. We don't use parameterised paths in MergeAppend yet. I wonder if it
> could be nudged by spreading the use of partitioned tables with foreign
> partitions. Do you think, in such a case, the usage of
> cheapest_total->rows will stay correct? It seems that the parameterised
> path has much less estimation than the RelOptInfo...
>
> 2. I understand why the upper relation has unset nrows. However, it may
> be more accurate to set row estimation for a pushing-down upper
> RelOptInfo. Or, at least, describe in comments why this is desirable
> behaviour. It would be profitable, at least, for extension developers.
I wonder if get_cheapest_fractional_path_for_pathkeys() should start
the same as get_cheapest_fractional_path() with calculation of the
tuple fraction. We could change its first argument to RelOptInfo,
since the both callers get pathlist from RelOptInfo. See attached
draft patch implementing this.
> I also support the second patch. With many partitions, it allows us to
> save a significant amount of CPU cycles.
+1
------
Regards,
Alexander Korotkov
Supabase
