Hi David, But overall, I'm more inclined to just go with the more simple "add a > cheap unordered startup append path if considering cheap startup > plans" version. I see your latest patch does both. So, I'd suggest two > patches as I do see the merit in keeping this simple and cheap. If we > can get the first part in and you still find cases where you're not > getting the most appropriate startup plan based on the tuple fraction, > then we can reconsider what extra complexity we should endure in the > code based on the example query where we've demonstrated the planner > is not choosing the best startup path appropriate to the given tuple > fraction. >
I think this is a fair point, I agree that your first part is good enough to be committed first. Actually I tried a lot to make a test case which can prove the value of cheapest fractional cost but no gain so far:( -- Best Regards Andy Fan
