Re: FW: Simple join optimized badly?

From: "Jim C(dot) Nasby" <jim(at)nasby(dot)net>
To: Mark Kirkwood <markir(at)paradise(dot)net(dot)nz>
Cc: "H(dot)J(dot) Sanders" <hjs(at)rmax(dot)nl>, pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: FW: Simple join optimized badly?
Date: 2006-10-12 13:52:49
Message-ID: 20061012135248.GS28647@nasby.net
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-performance

On Thu, Oct 12, 2006 at 10:59:23PM +1300, Mark Kirkwood wrote:
> H.J. Sanders wrote:
>
> > why not just like in some other (commercial) databases:
> >
> > a statement to say: use index ............
> >
> > I know this is against all though but if even the big ones can not resist
> > the pressure of their users, why not?
> >
>
> Yeah - some could not (e.g. Oracle), but some did (e.g. DB2), and it
> seemed (to me anyway) significant DB2's optimizer worked much better
> than Oracle's last time I used both of them (Oracle 8/9 and DB2 7/8).

If someone's going to commit to putting effort into improving the
planner then that's wonderful. But I can't recall any significant
planner improvements since min/max (which I'd argue was more of a bug
fix than an improvement). In fact, IIRC it took at least 2 major
versions to get min/max fixed, and that was a case where it was very
clear-cut what had to be done.
--
Jim Nasby jim(at)nasby(dot)net
EnterpriseDB http://enterprisedb.com 512.569.9461 (cell)

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-performance by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Tom Lane 2006-10-12 14:44:20 Re: FW: Simple join optimized badly?
Previous Message Mark Kirkwood 2006-10-12 09:59:23 Re: FW: Simple join optimized badly?