From: | Greg Sabino Mullane <greg(at)endpoint(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
Cc: | pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: Planner chooses multi-column index in 9.2 when maybe it should not |
Date: | 2012-10-11 03:42:18 |
Message-ID: | 20121011034218.GS9910@tinybird.home |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-general |
On Wed, Oct 10, 2012 at 09:24:32PM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> I'd not been thinking of that change as something we'd risk
> back-patching, but maybe we should consider putting it into 9.2. It
> seems like the index-only scan support has put a new level of premium on
> the quality of the planner's rowcount estimates.
Yes, please do! It's that or we globally disable index-only scans,
which I'd prefer not to do. Let me know if you'd like me to test
a patch, I can apply it and see if it fixes our issue at hand.
> Meanwhile, that range condition in itself looks a tad, er, klugy.
> Do you really need that, or is this a crummy way of stating
> foobar.id = m.id?
No, it's really needed. That's merely the tip of the kluginess;
don't get me started! The dangers of an organically grown schema. :)
This thing has been growing since Postgres v6.
(Looking back at how far Postgres has come from 6.x to 9.2
is truly awe-inspiring)
--
Greg Sabino Mullane greg(at)endpoint(dot)com
End Point Corporation
PGP Key: 0x14964AC8
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Craig Ringer | 2012-10-11 04:57:07 | Re: moving from MySQL to pgsql |
Previous Message | Joshua D. Drake | 2012-10-11 03:17:07 | Re: moving from MySQL to pgsql |