From: | Peter Geoghegan <pg(at)bowt(dot)ie> |
---|---|
To: | Tomas Vondra <tomas(dot)vondra(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
Cc: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, Rafia Sabih <rafia(dot)sabih(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>, Amit Kapila <amit(dot)kapila16(at)gmail(dot)com>, PostgreSQL Developers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>, Thomas Munro <thomas(dot)munro(at)enterprisedb(dot)com> |
Subject: | Re: TPC-H Q20 from 1 hour to 19 hours! |
Date: | 2017-06-11 23:39:40 |
Message-ID: | CAH2-Wz=o7r-6p6k+OLHJR9RamY7kVXWo1=rqZ_5ftBt4_xOYNA@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Sun, Jun 11, 2017 at 4:10 PM, Tomas Vondra
<tomas(dot)vondra(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> wrote:
> I do strongly recommend reading this paper analyzing choke points of
> individual TPC-H queries:
>
> http://oai.cwi.nl/oai/asset/21424/21424B.pdf
>
> It's slightly orthogonal to the issue at hand (poor estimate in Q20 causing
> choice of inefficient plan), it's a great paper to read. I thought I've
> already posted a link to the this paper sometime in the past, but I don't
> see it in the archives.
Thanks for the tip!
The practical focus of this paper really appeals to me.
--
Peter Geoghegan
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Tom Lane | 2017-06-12 00:03:28 | Re: Transactional sequence stuff breaks pg_upgrade |
Previous Message | Tomas Vondra | 2017-06-11 23:10:31 | Re: TPC-H Q20 from 1 hour to 19 hours! |