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: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
Cc: Josh Berkus <josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com>, 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 21:08:15
Message-ID: AANLkTimD174+muSzfg4FGfat26V2ebEsDw7f9sLcwBR7@mail.gmail.com (view raw or flat)
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-performance
On Wed, Mar 23, 2011 at 6:00 PM, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
> Claudio Freire <klaussfreire(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
>> In my head, safer = better worst-case performance.
>
> If the planner starts operating on the basis of worst case rather than
> expected-case performance, the complaints will be far more numerous than
> they are today.

I imagine, that's why, if you put my comment in context, I was talking
about picking a safer plan only when the "better on average one" fails
miserably.

In response to

Responses

pgsql-performance by date

Next:From: Marti RaudseppDate: 2011-03-23 21:56:16
Subject: Re: Slow query on CLUTER -ed tables
Previous:From: Tom LaneDate: 2011-03-23 21:00:04
Subject: Re: Shouldn't we have a way to avoid "risky" plans?

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