Re: PROPOSAL: geqo improvement

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

In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  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