> On Jul 24, 2020, at 06:48, Tom Lane <t...@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
>
> There's certainly not a lot besides tradition to justify the exact
> numbers used in this case.
Since we already special-case parent tables for partition sets, would a storage
parameter that lets you either tell the planner "no, really, zero is reasonable
here" or sets a minimum number of rows to plan for be reasonable? I happened
to get bit by this tracking down an issue where several tables in a large query
had zero rows, and the planner's assumption of a few pages worth caused some
sub-optimal plans. The performance hit wasn't huge, but they were being joined
to some *very* large tables, and the differences added up.
--
-- Christophe Pettus
x...@thebuild.com
