| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Bruce Momjian <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: [COMMITTERS] pgsql-server/ oc/src/sgml/runtime.sgml rc/back ... |
| Date: | 2002-11-21 03:30:20 |
| Message-ID: | 6717.1037849420@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-committers pgsql-hackers |
Bruce Momjian <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us> writes:
> Tom, do we really want to add a GUC that is used just for comparison of
> performance? I know we have the seqscan on/off, but there are valid
> reasons to do that. Do you think there will be cases where it will
> faster to have this hash setting off?
Sure --- that's why the planner code is going to great lengths to try to
choose the faster one. Even if I didn't think that, it'll be at least
as useful as, say, enable_indexscan.
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Bruce Momjian | 2002-11-21 03:33:55 | Re: [COMMITTERS] pgsql-server/ oc/src/sgml/runtime.sgml rc/back |
| Previous Message | Bruce Momjian | 2002-11-21 01:05:04 | Re: pgsql-server/ oc/src/sgml/runtime.sgml rc/back ... |
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Bruce Momjian | 2002-11-21 03:33:55 | Re: [COMMITTERS] pgsql-server/ oc/src/sgml/runtime.sgml rc/back |
| Previous Message | David Wheeler | 2002-11-21 03:02:51 | Re: DBD::PostgreSQL |