From: | Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndQuadrant(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Dimitri Fontaine <dimitri(at)2ndquadrant(dot)fr> |
Cc: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: Transient plans versus the SPI API |
Date: | 2011-08-07 11:24:10 |
Message-ID: | CA+U5nM+fX=i82+29aT2S=ZvJfAiQua=7oDcwhxtWhw95PVKpMA@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Sat, Aug 6, 2011 at 7:29 PM, Dimitri Fontaine <dimitri(at)2ndquadrant(dot)fr> wrote:
> Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> writes:
>> I think we'll be a lot better off with the framework discussed last
>> year: build a generic plan, as well as custom plans for the first few
>> sets of parameter values, and then observe whether there's a significant
>> reduction in estimated costs for the custom plans.
>
> Another way here would be to cache more than a single plan and to keep
> execution time samples or some other relevant runtime characteristics.
> Then what we need would be a way to switch from a plan to another at run
> time on some conditions, like realizing that the reason why the planner
> thought a nestloop would be perfect is obviously wrong, or maybe just
> based on runtime characteristics.
Tom and I discussed storing multiple sub-plans on a node back in '05
IIRC, and Tom later put in support for that.
That wasn't followed up on.
--
Simon Riggs http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training & Services
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | PostgreSQL - Hans-Jürgen Schönig | 2011-08-07 12:22:25 | Re: Will switchover still need a checkpoint in 9.1 SR Hot Standby |
Previous Message | Peter Eisentraut | 2011-08-07 09:43:52 | Re: cataloguing NOT NULL constraints |