Re: anti-join chosen even when slower than old plan

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: Mladen Gogala <mladen(dot)gogala(at)vmsinfo(dot)com>
Cc: Kevin Grittner <Kevin(dot)Grittner(at)wicourts(dot)gov>, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, "pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: anti-join chosen even when slower than old plan
Date: 2010-11-11 17:45:51
Message-ID: 17688.1289497551@sss.pgh.pa.us
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-performance

Mladen Gogala <mladen(dot)gogala(at)vmsinfo(dot)com> writes:
> Again, having an optimizer which will choose the plan completely
> accurately is, at least in my opinion, less important than having a
> possibility of manual control, the aforementioned "knobs and buttons"
> and produce the same plan for the same statement.

More knobs and buttons is the Oracle way, and the end result of that
process is that you have something as hard to use as Oracle. That's
generally not thought of as desirable in this community.

regards, tom lane

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-performance by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Craig James 2010-11-11 17:55:39 Re: anti-join chosen even when slower than old plan
Previous Message Mladen Gogala 2010-11-11 17:13:08 Re: anti-join chosen even when slower than old plan