From: | "marcin mank" <marcin(dot)mank(at)gmail(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | |
Cc: | PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: PROPOSAL: geqo improvement |
Date: | 2009-01-05 02:26:08 |
Message-ID: | b1b9fac60901041826h5850f14aq75df8443de25f238@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
> It sounds like you're proposing to compare the time spent planning to
> the estimated execution time. AFAICS, those things are unrelated, so
> I'm not sure what you hope to figure out by comparing them.
The idea is: If we are to spend a LOT of resources executing the
query, we might as well burn some cycles in hope of finding a better
plan.
> It sounds like you may have some concrete queries that suffer from
> this problem. It might be helpful to post the queries and the good
> and bad plans. It may be that the problem can be fixed with some
> tuning of the existing parameters.
Actually, no. This is my random thought based on observing some
threads where people get bad plans due to GEQO.
> The deadline for the final CommitFest was November 1st, so I think it
> is too late for 8.4.
ugh.. too bad. I`m still interested anyway :)
Marcin
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Alvaro Herrera | 2009-01-05 02:28:01 | Re: Export IsUnderPostmaster for pg_stat_statements on win32 |
Previous Message | ITAGAKI Takahiro | 2009-01-05 02:06:43 | Many "loaded library" logs by preload libraries |