From: | The Hermit Hacker <scrappy(at)hub(dot)org> |
---|---|
To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
Cc: | Zeugswetter Andreas IZ5 <Andreas(dot)Zeugswetter(at)telecom(dot)at>, hackers(at)postgreSQL(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: [HACKERS] Really slow query on 6.4.2 |
Date: | 1999-03-29 18:49:25 |
Message-ID: | Pine.BSF.4.05.9903291448160.6652-100000@thelab.hub.org |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Thu, 25 Mar 1999, Tom Lane wrote:
> Zeugswetter Andreas IZ5 <Andreas(dot)Zeugswetter(at)telecom(dot)at> writes:
> > 5. Actually postgresql has behaved in this manner because of certain
> > "bugs" in the optimizer. Recently a lot of those "bugs" have been
> > identified and "fixed", thus destroying the defacto rule based
> > behavior.
>
> That's a real good point --- I think we've already heard a couple of
> complaints about the new optimizer doing "silly" things that it didn't
> use to do.
>
> I repeat my proposal: CREATE TABLE should insert a default size (say
> about 1000 tuples) into pg_class.reltuples, rather than inserting 0.
> That way, the optimizer will only choose small-table-oriented plans
> if the table has actually been verified to be small by vacuum.
inserting 0 is an accurate number, not 1000 ...
Marc G. Fournier ICQ#7615664 IRC Nick: Scrappy
Systems Administrator @ hub.org
primary: scrappy(at)hub(dot)org secondary: scrappy(at){freebsd|postgresql}.org
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | geek+ | 1999-03-29 20:07:20 | Re: AW: [HACKERS] Really slow query on 6.4.2 |
Previous Message | The Hermit Hacker | 1999-03-29 18:40:00 | Re: AW: [HACKERS] Really slow query on 6.4.2 |