On Thu, 16 Apr 2009, Robert Haas wrote:
> I hasten to point out that I only suggested raising them to the moon
> as a DEBUGGING strategy, not a production configuration.
The problem is that we have created a view that by itself a very
time-consuming query to answer, relying on it being incorporated into a
query that will constrain it and cause it to be evaluated a lot quicker.
This kind of scenario kind of guarantees a bad plan as soon as the number
of tables reaches from_collapse_limit.
Failure is not an option. It comes bundled with your Microsoft product.
-- Ferenc Mantfeld
In response to
pgsql-performance by date
|Next:||From: Tom Lane||Date: 2009-04-16 16:01:12|
|Subject: Re: Shouldn't the planner have a higher cost for reverse index scans? |
|Previous:||From: Lists||Date: 2009-04-16 15:52:32|
|Subject: Re: Shouldn't the planner have a higher cost for reverse