From: | Bruce Momjian <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us> |
---|---|
To: | Richard Huxton <dev(at)archonet(dot)com> |
Cc: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: Re: Query not using index |
Date: | 2001-05-10 23:47:13 |
Message-ID: | 200105102347.f4ANlDv06875@candle.pha.pa.us |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-general |
> Is there a good reason why rdbms don't just keep a cache of decisions on
> this stuff. I realise SQL is supposed to be ad-hoc but in reality, it's the
> old 90:10 rule where a handful of queries get run consistently and where
> performance is important.
>
> Why doesn't PG (or any other system afaik) just have a first guess, run the
> query and then if the costs are horribly wrong cache the right result. I'm
> guessing there's a bloody good reason (TM) for it since query planning has
> got to be equivalent to least-cost path so NP (NP-Complete? I forget - too
> long out of college).
I have asked about this before. Decisions about sequential/index scans
could be theoretically fed from the executor back to the optimizer for
later user.
--
Bruce Momjian | http://candle.pha.pa.us
pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us | (610) 853-3000
+ If your life is a hard drive, | 830 Blythe Avenue
+ Christ can be your backup. | Drexel Hill, Pennsylvania 19026
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Jeff Waugh | 2001-05-11 01:22:13 | Passing composite types to plpgsql functions |
Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2001-05-10 23:27:54 | Re: Re: Query not using index |