From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
---|---|
To: | Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
Cc: | Nathan Wagner <nw+pg(at)hydaspes(dot)if(dot)org>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: patch for geqo tweaks |
Date: | 2015-11-04 22:11:08 |
Message-ID: | 15472.1446675068@sss.pgh.pa.us |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> writes:
> Tom Lane wrote:
>> Having said that, though, I believe that it's also probably a
>> *different* initial shuffle, which may well mean that GEQO gives
>> different plans in some cases. That doesn't bother me as long as
>> we only make the change in HEAD, but does anyone want to complain?
> Uh, do we promise that plans found by geqo are stable? That would seem
> odd to me -- wouldn't they change shape on a whim, say because the stats
> are different? It seems odd to look for plan stability using a genetic
> algorithm.
Well, obviously any plan might change if the stats change. But we do
promise repeatable plans given identical input data, cf commit f5bc74192.
regards, tom lane
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Joe Conway | 2015-11-04 22:13:54 | Re: Request: pg_cancel_backend variant that handles 'idle in transaction' sessions |
Previous Message | Josh Berkus | 2015-11-04 22:10:28 | Re: Request: pg_cancel_backend variant that handles 'idle in transaction' sessions |