Re: *_collapse_limit, geqo_threshold

Tom Lane wrote:
> "Kevin Grittner" <Kevin(dot)Grittner(at)wicourts(dot)gov> writes:
>> I guess the question is whether there is anyone who has had a contrary
>> experience. (There must have been some benchmarks to justify adding
>> geqo at some point?)
>
> The CVS history shows that geqo was integrated on 1997-02-19, which
> I think means that it must have been developed against Postgres95

> So while I don't doubt that geqo was absolutely essential when it was
> written, it's fair to question whether it still provides a real win.
> And we could definitely stand to take another look at the default
> thresholds.

Well there is a TODO item about implementing an alternative to GEQO
(which is being treated more and more as the underdog of the project):
http://archives.postgresql.org/message-id/15658.1241278636%40sss.pgh.pa.us

Would people be interested in someone working on that item?

Cheers,
Jan