From: | Atri Sharma <atri(dot)jiit(at)gmail(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
Cc: | David Johnston <polobo(at)yahoo(dot)com>, Pg Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: Planner hints in Postgresql |
Date: | 2014-03-17 17:15:56 |
Message-ID: | CAOeZVieK0JT4tDZr8wTxEZHwD0byvTTP4J7n+CJ-6R-MU+m4wg@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Mon, Mar 17, 2014 at 9:45 PM, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
> David Johnston <polobo(at)yahoo(dot)com> writes:
> > Need to discuss the general "why" before any meaningful help on the
> "how" is
> > going to be considered by hackers.
>
> Possibly worth noting is that in past discussions, we've concluded that
> the most sensible type of hint would not be "use this plan" at all, but
> "here's what to assume about the selectivity of this WHERE clause".
> That seems considerably less likely to break than any attempt to directly
> specify plan details.
>
>
Isnt using a user given value for selectivity a pretty risky situation as
it can horribly screw up the plan selection?
Why not allow the user to specify an alternate plan and have the planner
assign a higher preference to it during plan evaluation? This shall allow
us to still have a fair evaluation of all possible plans as we do right now
and yet have a higher preference for the user given plan during evaluation?
Regards,
Atri
--
Regards,
Atri
*l'apprenant*
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Robert Haas | 2014-03-17 17:19:41 | Re: on_exit_reset fails to clear DSM-related exit actions |
Previous Message | Andres Freund | 2014-03-17 17:08:16 | Re: First-draft release notes for next week's releases |