Matthew Wakeling <matthew(at)flymine(dot)org> writes:
> On Thu, 16 Apr 2009, Robert Haas wrote:
>> I hasten to point out that I only suggested raising them to the moon
>> as a DEBUGGING strategy, not a production configuration.
> The problem is that we have created a view that by itself a very
> time-consuming query to answer, relying on it being incorporated into a
> query that will constrain it and cause it to be evaluated a lot quicker.
> This kind of scenario kind of guarantees a bad plan as soon as the number
> of tables reaches from_collapse_limit.
Well, if the payoff for you exceeds the extra planning time, then you
raise the setting. That's why it's a configurable knob. I was just
pointing out that there are downsides to raising it further than
regards, tom lane
In response to
pgsql-performance by date
|Next:||From: Matthew Wakeling||Date: 2009-04-16 16:06:03|
|Subject: GiST index performance|
|Previous:||From: Tom Lane||Date: 2009-04-16 16:01:12|
|Subject: Re: Shouldn't the planner have a higher cost for reverse index scans? |