Re: BUG #3667: Job scheduling with Greenplum fails

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: "Roberts, Jon" <Jon(dot)Roberts(at)asurion(dot)com>
Cc: pgsql-bugs(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: BUG #3667: Job scheduling with Greenplum fails
Date: 2007-10-10 21:23:42
Message-ID: 24520.1192051422@sss.pgh.pa.us
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-bugs

"Roberts, Jon" <Jon(dot)Roberts(at)asurion(dot)com> writes:
> What if the new query has a significantly lower cost compared to the older
> one?

Much as I'd like the planner to be infallible, it ain't; estimated costs
are no proof of any real-world performance difference. Better show
EXPLAIN ANALYZE numbers if you want to be taken seriously --- and *not*
ones from a Greenplum-modified PG.

In any case "I can make this particular query faster" seems a rather
different argument from "you guys should eliminate all use of correlated
subqueries".

regards, tom lane

In response to

Browse pgsql-bugs by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Tom Lane 2007-10-10 21:32:17 Re: BUG #3668: type error in serial
Previous Message Roberts, Jon 2007-10-10 20:02:49 Re: BUG #3667: Job scheduling with Greenplum fails