From: | Stephen Frost <sfrost(at)snowman(dot)net> |
---|---|
To: | Atri Sharma <atri(dot)jiit(at)gmail(dot)com> |
Cc: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, David Johnston <polobo(at)yahoo(dot)com>, Pg Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: Planner hints in Postgresql |
Date: | 2014-03-17 17:28:21 |
Message-ID: | 20140317172821.GK26394@tamriel.snowman.net |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
* Atri Sharma (atri(dot)jiit(at)gmail(dot)com) wrote:
> Isnt using a user given value for selectivity a pretty risky situation as
> it can horribly screw up the plan selection?
>
> Why not allow the user to specify an alternate plan and have the planner
Uh, you're worried about the user given us a garbage selectivity, but
they're going to get a full-blown plan perfect?
> assign a higher preference to it during plan evaluation? This shall allow
> us to still have a fair evaluation of all possible plans as we do right now
> and yet have a higher preference for the user given plan during evaluation?
What exactly would such a "preference" look like? A cost modifier?
We'd almost certainly have to make that into a GUC or a value passed in
as part of the query, with a high likelihood of users figuring out how
to use it to say "use my plan forever and always"..
Thanks,
Stephen
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | David Johnston | 2014-03-17 17:28:40 | Re: Planner hints in Postgresql |
Previous Message | Robert Haas | 2014-03-17 17:26:26 | Re: Portability issues in shm_mq |