From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
---|---|
To: | Jan Urbański <wulczer(at)wulczer(dot)org> |
Cc: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, Tatsuo Ishii <ishii(at)postgresql(dot)org>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: Solving sudoku using SQL |
Date: | 2010-12-08 20:18:27 |
Message-ID: | 20281.1291839507@sss.pgh.pa.us |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
=?UTF-8?B?SmFuIFVyYmHFhHNraQ==?= <wulczer(at)wulczer(dot)org> writes:
> I'm pleasantly surprised that the SA code as it stands today, setting
> the equlibrium factor to 8 and temperature reduction factor to 0.4, the
> query takes 1799.662 ms in total.
Cool.
> With the default values it runs
> forever, but I long discovered that defaults taken from the original
> paper are not well suited for my PG implementation (I could plug my MSc
> thesis here, but I'm way too shy for that). 8/0.4 are values where I got
> better results than GEQO for Andres' monster-query.
Hmmm ... "runs forever" is a bit scary. One of the few good things I
can say about GEQO is that it will terminate in a reasonable amount of
time for even quite large problems. I would like to think that SA will
also have that property. I thought that the annealing approach was sure
to terminate in a fixed number of steps? Or did you mean that the
planner terminated, but produced a horrid plan?
regards, tom lane
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Kineticode Billing | 2010-12-08 20:18:53 | Re: Review: Extensions Patch |
Previous Message | Dimitri Fontaine | 2010-12-08 20:18:16 | Re: Review: Extensions Patch |