| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Greg Sabino Mullane <greg(at)turnstep(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: Re: [COMMITTERS] pgsql: Rewrite GEQO's gimme_tree function so that it always finds a |
| Date: | 2009-12-03 03:32:00 |
| Message-ID: | 28516.1259811120@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-committers pgsql-hackers |
Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
> Not sure what you mean. There's already a special-case code path for
> cross joins; but I think it's probably considering a lot of silly
> paths. Is there a case where it makes sense to do cross joins at some
> stage of the process other than last?
They *are* done last, as a rule, because of the heuristic that prefers to
join where there's a join clause. (However I've gotten negative comments
about that --- some people think that when joining small detail tables
to a big fact table, it'd be better to cross-join the detail tables and
then do one multi-clause join to the big table. I'm unconvinced myself
but there does seem to be more than one school of thought about it.)
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Robert Haas | 2009-12-03 03:49:48 | Re: Re: [COMMITTERS] pgsql: Rewrite GEQO's gimme_tree function so that it always finds a |
| Previous Message | Robert Haas | 2009-12-03 03:24:09 | Re: Re: [COMMITTERS] pgsql: Rewrite GEQO's gimme_tree function so that it always finds a |
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Jose Ildefonso Camargo Tolosa | 2009-12-03 03:34:43 | Re: [Bacula-users] Catastrophic changes to PostgreSQL 8.4 |
| Previous Message | Craig Ringer | 2009-12-03 03:28:18 | Re: Catastrophic changes to PostgreSQL 8.4 |