| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Heikki Linnakangas <hlinnaka(at)iki(dot)fi> |
| Cc: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, Peter Geoghegan <pg(at)bowt(dot)ie>, David Rowley <dgrowleyml(at)gmail(dot)com>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: On disable_cost |
| Date: | 2024-07-02 21:49:09 |
| Message-ID: | 3141205.1719956949@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Heikki Linnakangas <hlinnaka(at)iki(dot)fi> writes:
> 3. Oh right, bitmap scan, I forgot about that one. Let's disable that too:
Yeah, I've hit that too, although more often (for me) it's the first
choice of plan. In any case, it usually takes more than one change
to get to a seqscan.
> It almost feels like we should have yet another GUC to disable index
> scans, index-only scans and bitmap index scans. "enable_indexes=off" or
> something.
There's something to be said for that idea. Breaking compatibility is
a little easier to stomach if there's a clear convenience win, and
this'd offer that.
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Peter Eisentraut | 2024-07-02 21:51:37 | Re: Underscore in positional parameters? |
| Previous Message | Heikki Linnakangas | 2024-07-02 21:39:43 | Re: On disable_cost |