From: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
Cc: | pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: Cost estimates for parameterized paths |
Date: | 2010-09-04 00:35:33 |
Message-ID: | AANLkTik25SAqBQOCjj68SK1OctMk8_C5+=ELCM+uMxOX@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Fri, Sep 3, 2010 at 5:53 PM, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
> Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
>> On Fri, Sep 3, 2010 at 2:04 PM, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
>>> On reflection I think that for parameterized paths the problem won't be
>>> too bad, because (a) we'll ignore parameterized paths except when
>>> considering a join to the right outer rel, so their presence in the
>>> rel's pathlist won't cost much otherwise,
>
>> Hmm. Maybe they should go into a separate path list, and perhaps we
>> could do the min/max calculations only with that pathlist (at least
>> for now), thus avoiding taking a generalized penalty to handle this
>> specific case. IIUC, a parameterized path should never cause an
>> unparamaterized path to be thrown out,
>
> Yeah, but the converse isn't true. I had considered the idea of keeping
> parameterized paths in a separate list, but you'd still have to examine
> the main list to look for unparameterized paths that might dominate them.
Definitely true, but if it avoids slowing down add_path() in the
common case, it's worth it.
--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise Postgres Company
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Robert Haas | 2010-09-04 01:19:06 | Re: Interruptible sleeps (was Re: CommitFest 2009-07: Yay, Kevin! Thanks, reviewers!) |
Previous Message | Robert Haas | 2010-09-04 00:33:29 | Re: ps buffer is incorrectly padded on the (latest) OS X |