| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Teodor Sigaev <teodor(at)sigaev(dot)ru> |
| Cc: | pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org, Patches <pgsql-patches(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Bundle of patches |
| Date: | 2006-12-05 15:32:23 |
| Message-ID: | 4918.1165332743@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers pgsql-patches |
Teodor Sigaev <teodor(at)sigaev(dot)ru> writes:
>> useful optimizations most of the time. Have you done any benchmarking
>> to find out what the cost is when the optimizations don't succeed?
> Test runs on my notebook with PIII/512Mb, FreeBSD 6.1, postgres was compiled
> with -O0 and --enable-debug --enable-cassert
This is not responding to my concern. What you presented was an
advertisement for the cases where the patch is able to find a better
plan. What I want to know about is how much planning time is added
for queries that it's *not* able to improve. EXPLAIN ANALYZE output
doesn't address that point because it doesn't show planning time.
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tom Lane | 2006-12-05 15:49:54 | Re: old synchronized scan patch |
| Previous Message | Bruce Momjian | 2006-12-05 15:27:46 | Re: FAQ refresh |
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tom Lane | 2006-12-05 16:25:20 | Re: FAQ refresh |
| Previous Message | Bruce Momjian | 2006-12-05 15:27:46 | Re: FAQ refresh |