An Elephant Under the Microscope: Analyzing the Interaction of Optimizer Components in PostgreSQL
Rico Bergmann, Claudio Hartmann, Dirk Habich, Wolfgang Lehner
Abstract
Despite an ever-growing corpus of novel query optimization strategies, the interaction of the core components of query optimizers is still not well understood. This situation can be problematic for two main reasons: On the one hand, this may cause surprising results when two components influence each other in an unexpected way. On the other hand, this can lead to wasted effort in regard to both engineering and research, e.g., when an improvement for one component is dwarfed or entirely canceled out by problems of another component. Therefore, we argue that making improvements to a single optimization component requires a thorough understanding of how these changes might affect the other components. To achieve this understanding, we present results of a comprehensive experimental analysis of the interplay in the traditional optimizer architecture using the widely-used PostgreSQL system as prime representative. Our evaluation and analysis revisit the core building blocks of such an optimizer, i.e. per-column statistics, cardinality estimation, cost model, and plan generation. In particular, we analyze how these building blocks influence each other and how they react when faced with faulty input, such as imprecise cardinality estimates. Based on our results, we draw novel conclusions and make recommendations on how these should be taken into account.
Ask about this paper
Ask your agent about it.
Lune has read the top-tier papers around this one, so every answer names the papers it rests on.
Your agent calls
Lunesearch_papers
Free to start. No credit card required.
Terminal
Install the CLIlune papers get c0690ad8-0df2-4304-af8e-0a2f5cfd2ebbCited by top-tier papers2
- This is Going to Sound Crazy, But What If We Used Large Language Models to Boost Automatic Database Tuning Algorithms By Leveraging Prior History? We Will Find Better Configurations More Quickly Than Retraining From Scratch!William Zhang, Wan Shen Lim, Andrew PavloSIGMOD 2026 · 7 citations
- [Experiment, Analysis, and Benchmark] Systematic Evaluation of Plan-Based Adaptive Query ProcessingPei Mu, Anderson Chaves Carniel, Antonio Barbalace, Amir ShaikhhaICDE 2026 · 2 citations
Related papers
- Speeding Up End-to-end Query Execution via Learning-based Progressive Cardinality EstimationFang Wang, Xiao Yan, Man Lung Yiu, Shuai Li et al.SIGMOD 2023 · 24 citations
- Analyzing the Impact of Cardinality Estimation on Execution Plans in Microsoft SQL ServerKukjin Lee, Anshuman Dutt, Vivek R. Narasayya, Surajit ChaudhuriVLDB 2023 · 26 citations
- Cardinality Estimation in DBMS: A Comprehensive Benchmark EvaluationYuxing Han, Ziniu Wu, Peizhi Wu, Rong Zhu et al.VLDB 2022 · 169 citations
- Efficient Query Re-optimization with Judicious Subquery SelectionsJunyi Zhao, Huanchen Zhang, Yihan GaoSIGMOD 2023 · 12 citations
- From Single to Multiple Attributes: Experimental Insights on Sampling-Based Distinct Combination Estimation in Group-by QueriesYujie Zhang, Xiaochun Yang, Bin Wang, Yuan SuiICDE 2026
