Re: *_collapse_limit, geqo_threshold

From: "Kevin Grittner" <Kevin(dot)Grittner(at)wicourts(dot)gov>
To: "Robert Haas" <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, "Tom Lane" <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
Cc: "Dimitri Fontaine" <dim(at)hi-media(dot)com>, "pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: *_collapse_limit, geqo_threshold
Date: 2009-07-08 21:13:11
Message-ID: 4A54C59702000025000285E8@gw.wicourts.gov
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:

> It occurs to me that one way to make GEQO less scary would be to
> take out the nondeterminism by resetting its random number generator
> for each query. You might get a good plan or an awful one, but at
> least it'd be the same one each time. DBAs like predictability.

+1 The biggest reason that I've tended to avoid geqo is that I would
never know when it might do something really stupid with a query one
time out of some large number, leading to mysterious complaints which
could eat a lot of time.

For a moment it seemed logical to suggest a session GUC for the seed,
so if you got a bad plan you could keep rolling the dice until you got
one you liked; but my right-brain kept sending shivers down my spine
to suggest just how uncomfortable it was with that idea....

-Kevin

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Kenneth Marshall 2009-07-08 21:18:26 Re: *_collapse_limit, geqo_threshold
Previous Message Tom Lane 2009-07-08 20:57:33 Re: *_collapse_limit, geqo_threshold