| From: | David Rowley <dgrowleyml(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | Richard Guo <guofenglinux(at)gmail(dot)com>, Ronan Dunklau <ronan(dot)dunklau(at)aiven(dot)io>, PostgreSQL Developers <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org>, Ranier Vilela <ranier(dot)vf(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Subject: | Re: Add proper planner support for ORDER BY / DISTINCT aggregates |
| Date: | 2022-08-02 14:59:05 |
| Message-ID: | CAApHDvra5O1B_=8bZiQ79Rt_+MtamrhcH7XuGoTZe8oz_QEKPQ@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Wed, 3 Aug 2022 at 01:19, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
>
> David Rowley <dgrowleyml(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
> > I chatted to Andres and Thomas about this last week and their view
> > made me think it might not be quite as clear-cut as "just bump it up a
> > bunch because it's ridiculously low" that I had in mind. They
> > mentioned about file_fdw and another one that appears to work on
> > mmapped segments, which I don't recall if any names were mentioned.
>
> Um ... DEFAULT_FDW_TUPLE_COST is postgres_fdw-specific, so I do not
> see what connection some other FDW would have to it.
I should have devoted more brain cells to that one.
Anyway, I started a thread at [1].
David
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Andres Freund | 2022-08-02 15:00:22 | Re: PG 15 (and to a smaller degree 14) regression due to ExprEvalStep size |
| Previous Message | David Rowley | 2022-08-02 14:56:12 | Why is DEFAULT_FDW_TUPLE_COST so insanely low? |