From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
---|---|
To: | Neil Conway <neilc(at)samurai(dot)com> |
Cc: | pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: left-deep plans? |
Date: | 2005-02-22 07:07:09 |
Message-ID: | 6296.1109056029@sss.pgh.pa.us |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Neil Conway <neilc(at)samurai(dot)com> writes:
> Tom Lane wrote:
>> Once we get into GEQO territory, we are using the left-deep-only
>> heuristic because that's the only kind of plan GEQO can construct.
> I think most applications would prefer an exhaustive, deterministic
> search of a subset of the search space over a non-exhaustive,
> non-deterministic search of the same subset, given approximately the
> same performance.
I am not by any means standing up to defend GEQO as being the best
way to do partial searches ;-). Just saying that in the regime where
we can hope to do complete searches, we shouldn't exclude bushy plans.
> Speaking of which, why does GEQO restrict its search to left-deep plans
> only?
Well, because it's really a traveling-salesman algorithm, and it models
the "find a good join tree" problem as "find a good tour". I've
commented before that I don't believe this is a particularly good model
--- intuitively it doesn't seem that the cost functions have the same
structure. But I've not had time to look for a better heuristic
algorithm. Just one of the many things on the TODO list ...
regards, tom lane
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Ian Barwick | 2005-02-22 07:18:19 | Re: psql: recall previous command? |
Previous Message | Neil Conway | 2005-02-22 06:40:40 | Re: left-deep plans? |