Re: GEQO: ERX

From: Adriano Lange <alange0001(at)gmail(dot)com>
To: Tobias Zahn <tobias-zahn(at)arcor(dot)de>
Cc: Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: GEQO: ERX
Date: 2009-05-21 03:06:15
Message-ID: 4A14C527.7000904@gmail.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Hi

Tobias Zahn escreveu:
> Hello Adriano,
> thank you very much for posting your patch. I think it will help to make
> further work easier, too. I hope you don't mind when I ask you some
> questions.
>
> When you said that this new approach is worse or equal than GEQO, did
> you refer to performance or to the quality of results?

Not exactly this approach, but the implemented (and not configured)
algorithm was worse than GEQO in a little test made. I just used a
sequence of 8 executions of a query with 18 relations for each
algorithm. The costs generated by GEQO was little better than 2PO, in
average and standard deviation. But 8 executions and 1 query don't prove
anything. I want to make some further tests, but this little difference
seems good for me.

> Why do you think that compressed annealing might be the better approach?

I don't think if compressed annealing is better or not. I don't read
about it yet.

However, an optimizer can be better in a context but worse in another.

Regards,
Adriano

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Robert Haas 2009-05-21 03:40:31 from_collapse_limit vs. geqo_threshold
Previous Message Zdenek Kotala 2009-05-21 03:01:57 Re: Multiple sorts in a query