Skip site navigation (1) Skip section navigation (2)

Re: Shouldn't we have a way to avoid "risky" plans?

From: Claudio Freire <klaussfreire(at)gmail(dot)com>
To: Josh Berkus <josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com>
Cc: postgres performance list <pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: Shouldn't we have a way to avoid "risky" plans?
Date: 2011-03-23 20:46:19
Message-ID: AANLkTi=RXUSrCxqz3=BkAiixuenu2gf-K+W15Wz4McXH@mail.gmail.com (view raw or flat)
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-performance
On Wed, Mar 23, 2011 at 5:29 PM, Josh Berkus <josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com> wrote:
> On 3/23/11 10:35 AM, Claudio Freire wrote:
>>  *  consider plan bailout: execute a tempting plan, if it takes too
>> long or its effective cost raises well above the expected cost, bail
>> to a safer plan
>
> That would actually solve this particular case.  It would still require
> us to have some definition of "safer" though.

In my head, safer = better worst-case performance.

In response to

Responses

pgsql-performance by date

Next:From: Tom LaneDate: 2011-03-23 21:00:04
Subject: Re: Shouldn't we have a way to avoid "risky" plans?
Previous:From: Josh BerkusDate: 2011-03-23 20:29:17
Subject: Re: Shouldn't we have a way to avoid "risky" plans?

Privacy Policy | About PostgreSQL
Copyright © 1996-2014 The PostgreSQL Global Development Group