(2019/01/23 20:35), Etsuro Fujita wrote:
> Attached is an updated version of the patch.
>
> Changes:
> * Fixed a stupid bug in the case when use_remote_estimate
> * Fixed a typo in a comment I added
> * Modified comments I added a little bit further
> * Added the commit message
>
> If there are n
(2019/01/04 20:33), Etsuro Fujita wrote:
> Here is a new version of the patch.
Attached is an updated version of the patch.
Changes:
* Fixed a stupid bug in the case when use_remote_estimate
* Fixed a typo in a comment I added
* Modified comments I added a little bit further
* Added the commit me
(2018/12/28 17:28), Etsuro Fujita wrote:
> I noticed that I forgot to modify the cost for evaluating the PathTarget
> for each output row accordingly to this change :(. Attached is a patch
> for that.
On reflection, I noticed these on estimate_path_cost_size, other than that:
1) In the case of a
(2018/12/04 17:24), Etsuro Fujita wrote:
> (2018/12/03 20:20), Etsuro Fujita wrote:
>> (2018/11/30 18:51), Etsuro Fujita wrote:
>>> (2018/11/28 13:38), Etsuro Fujita wrote:
BTW another thing I noticed is this comment on costing aggregate
pushdown paths using local statistics in estimate_p
(2018/12/03 20:20), Etsuro Fujita wrote:
> (2018/11/30 18:51), Etsuro Fujita wrote:
>> (2018/11/28 13:38), Etsuro Fujita wrote:
>>> BTW another thing I noticed is this comment on costing aggregate
>>> pushdown paths using local statistics in estimate_path_cost_size:
>>>
>>> * Also,
(2018/11/30 18:51), Etsuro Fujita wrote:
> (2018/11/28 13:38), Etsuro Fujita wrote:
>> BTW another thing I noticed is this comment on costing aggregate
>> pushdown paths using local statistics in estimate_path_cost_size:
>>
>>* Also, core does not care about costing HAVING expressio
(2018/11/28 13:38), Etsuro Fujita wrote:
> BTW another thing I noticed is this comment on costing aggregate
> pushdown paths using local statistics in estimate_path_cost_size:
>
> * Also, core does not care about costing HAVING expressions and
> * adding that to the cos
(2018/11/27 21:55), Etsuro Fujita wrote:
> While working on [1], I noticed that since we don't set the selectivity
> and cost of the local_conds (i.e., fpinfo->local_conds_sel and
> fpinfo->local_conds_cost) properly in add_foreign_grouping_paths and
> foreign_grouping_ok, estimate_path_cost_size p
Hi,
While working on [1], I noticed that since we don't set the selectivity
and cost of the local_conds (i.e., fpinfo->local_conds_sel and
fpinfo->local_conds_cost) properly in add_foreign_grouping_paths and
foreign_grouping_ok, estimate_path_cost_size produces considerably
underestimated results
