From: | Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> |
---|---|
To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
Cc: | "Kevin Grittner" <Kevin(dot)Grittner(at)wicourts(dot)gov>, "Robert Haas" <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: *_collapse_limit, geqo_threshold |
Date: | 2009-07-07 16:10:02 |
Message-ID: | 200907071810.02293.andres@anarazel.de |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Tuesday 07 July 2009 17:40:50 Tom Lane wrote:
> Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> writes:
> > I cannot reasonably plan some queries with join_collapse_limit set to 20.
> > At least not without setting the geqo limit very low and a geqo_effort to
> > a low value.
> > So I would definitely not agree that removing j_c_l is a good idea.
> Can you show some specific examples? All of this discussion seems like
> speculation in a vacuum ...
I still may not publish the original schema (And I still have not heard any
reasonable reasons) - the crazy query in the referenced email shows similar
problems and has a somewhat similar structure.
If that is not enough I will try to design a schema that is similar and
different enough from the original schema. Will take a day or two though.
Andres
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Andrew Dunstan | 2009-07-07 16:13:50 | Re: Maintenance Policy? |
Previous Message | David E. Wheeler | 2009-07-07 16:06:10 | Re: Maintenance Policy? |