On Mon, Feb 15, 2010 at 7:51 PM, Jeroen Vermeulen <jtv@xs4all.nl> wrote:
> AFAIC a statement could go to "re-planning mode" if the shortest execution
> time for the generic plan takes at least 10x longer than the longest
> planning time. That gives us a decent shot at finding statements where
> re-planning is a safe bet. A parameter that we or the user would have to
> tweak would just be a fragile approximation of that.
So in principle I agree with this idea. I think a conservative value
for the constant would be more like 100x though. If I told you we had
an easy way to speed all your queries up by 10% by caching queries but
were just choosing not to then I think you would be unhappy. Whereas
if I told you we were spending 1% of the run-time planning queries I
think most people would not be concerned.
There's a second problem though. We don't actually know how long any
given query is going to take to plan or execute. We could just
remember how long it took to plan and execute last time or how long it
took to plan last time and the average execution time since we cached
that plan. Perhaps we should track the stddev of the execution plan,
or the max execution time of the plan? Ie there are still unanswered
questions about the precise heuristic to use but I bet we can come up
with something reasonable.
--
greg