| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Stephen Frost <sfrost(at)snowman(dot)net>, Kevin Grittner <Kevin(dot)Grittner(at)wicourts(dot)gov>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: Slow tab completion w/ lots of tables |
| Date: | 2012-08-21 18:21:09 |
| Message-ID: | 5789.1345573269@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
> So, I think that hacking on psql's query generation rules may well be
> a good idea, but shouldn't we also be bumping procost for the
> pg_whatever_is_visible functions? I mean, Stephen's information
> suggests that those values are pretty clearly wrong, regardless of
> anything else.
Yeah, I think we discussed that once before. I have no particular
objection to doing that in HEAD, just think it's a bit late for 9.2.
In any case, it will only help for medium-size numbers of entries;
once you get to enough tables/functions/whatever that a seqscan of the
catalog is bad news, only fixing the name matching is going to help.
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Stephen Frost | 2012-08-21 18:23:52 | Re: Slow tab completion w/ lots of tables |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2012-08-21 18:18:19 | Re: 9.2RC1 wraps this Thursday ... |