From: | Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
Cc: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: Planner creating ineffective plans on LEFT OUTER joins |
Date: | 2008-06-26 08:15:13 |
Message-ID: | 1214468113.3845.10.camel@ebony.site |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Wed, 2008-06-25 at 23:34 -0400, Robert Haas wrote:
> I can predict that Tom will say that the planning time it would take
> to avoid this problem isn't justified by the number of queries that it
> would improve.
> That's possible, but it's unfortunate that there's no
> way to fiddle with the knobs and get the planner to do this kind of
> thing when you want it to.
I don't think we should invent a new parameter for each new
optimisation. We would soon get swamped.
IMHO we should have a single parameter which indicates how much planning
time we consider acceptable for this query. e.g.
optimization_level = 2 (default), varies 1-3
Most automatic optimisation systems allow this kind of setting, whether
it be a DBMS, or compilers (e.g. gcc).
We should agree a simple framework so that each new category of
optimization can be described as being a level X optimisation, or
discarded as being never worth the time. We do this with error messages,
so why not do this with something to control planning time?
--
Simon Riggs www.2ndQuadrant.com
PostgreSQL Training, Services and Support
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Martijn van Oosterhout | 2008-06-26 10:28:22 | Re: Latest on CITEXT 2.0 |
Previous Message | Harald Armin Massa | 2008-06-26 06:47:38 | Re: |