From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
---|---|
To: | Michael Meskes <meskes(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Cc: | PostgreSQL Hacker <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: optimizer question |
Date: | 2002-10-18 18:48:58 |
Message-ID: | 20040.1034966938@sss.pgh.pa.us |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Michael Meskes <meskes(at)postgresql(dot)org> writes:
> I was just approached with an optimizer question I cannot answer. Does
> our optimizer know how expensive different comparisons are?
It does not, because there's noplace it could look to find the info.
> If there are different comparisons in a where clause check the ints
> first, then the strings, then everything with regexp, or like clauses
> etc. and finally function calls at last, because in most cases a
> function call is the most expensive one.
Unfortunately, these all look like function calls to the optimizer.
I have played with the notion of forcing subquery-based WHERE clauses
to the end of the list, but that's about all that we could easily manage
without great leaps of assumptions...
regards, tom lane
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Tom Lane | 2002-10-18 18:51:12 | Re: ECPG and bison |
Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2002-10-18 18:43:47 | Re: pg_encoding doesn't reject invalid input |