| From: | Jeff Davis <pgsql(at)j-davis(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Dimitri Fontaine <dimitri(at)2ndquadrant(dot)fr>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: Transient plans versus the SPI API |
| Date: | 2011-08-04 23:58:42 |
| Message-ID: | 1312502322.21934.12.camel@jdavis-ux.asterdata.local |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Wed, 2011-08-03 at 13:07 -0400, Robert Haas wrote:
> A little OT here, but (as I think Simon said elsewhere) I think we
> really ought to be considering the table statistics when deciding
> whether or not to replan. It seems to me that the overwhelmingly
> common case where this is going to come up is when (some subset of)
> the MCVs require a different plan than run-of-the-mill values. It
> would be nice to somehow work that out.
That blurs the line a little bit. It sounds like this might be described
as "incremental planning", and perhaps that's a good way to think about
it.
Regards,
Jeff Davis
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Alex Hunsaker | 2011-08-05 00:44:18 | Re: plperl crash with Debian 6 (64 bit), pl/perlu, libwww and https |
| Previous Message | Jeff Davis | 2011-08-04 23:56:13 | Re: Transient plans versus the SPI API |