Re: Simple join optimized badly?

From: Tobias Brox <tobias(at)nordicbet(dot)com>
To: "Jim C(dot) Nasby" <jim(at)nasby(dot)net>
Cc: Chris Browne <cbbrowne(at)acm(dot)org>, pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: Simple join optimized badly?
Date: 2006-10-09 21:33:03
Message-ID: 20061009213303.GA19144@oppetid.no
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-performance

[Jim C. Nasby - Mon at 04:18:27PM -0500]
> I can agree to that, but we'll never get any progress so long as every
> time hints are brought up the response is that they're evil and should
> never be in the database. I'll also say that a very simple hinting
> language (ie: allowing you to specify access method for a table, and
> join methods) would go a huge way towards enabling app developers to get
> stuff done now while waiting for all these magical optimizer
> improvements that have been talked about for years.

Just a comment from the side line; can't the rough "set
enable_seqscan=off" be considered as sort of a hint anyway? There have
been situations where we've actually had to resort to such crud.

Beeing able to i.e. force a particular index is something I really
wouldn't put into the application except for as a very last resort,
_but_ beeing able to force i.e. the use of a particular index in an
interactive 'explain analyze'-query would often be ... if not outright
useful, then at least very interessting.

Responses

Browse pgsql-performance by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Jim C. Nasby 2006-10-09 22:30:31 Re: Simple join optimized badly?
Previous Message Jim C. Nasby 2006-10-09 21:26:15 Re: autovacuum not working?