Re: Wrong plan for subSELECT with GROUP BY

From: Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>
To: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
Cc: pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: Wrong plan for subSELECT with GROUP BY
Date: 2006-05-15 08:48:33
Message-ID: 1147682913.3465.232.camel@localhost.localdomain
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-performance

On Fri, 2006-05-12 at 10:05 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> Antal Attila <atesz(at)ritek(dot)hu> writes:
> > If this is a deficiency of the planner, I'd like to suggest this feature
> > into the planner.
>
> This really falls into the category of "you've got to be kidding".

Agreed

> There's no way that it'd be reasonable for the planner to expend cycles
> on every query to look for corner cases like this.

OT: Should we have a way of telling the optimizer how much time and
effort we would like it to go to? Some of the new optimizations and many
yet to come cover smaller and smaller sub-cases.

At least internally, we could mark the cost-of-optimization as we go, so
we can play with the external interface later.

--
Simon Riggs
EnterpriseDB http://www.enterprisedb.com

In response to

Browse pgsql-performance by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message David Wheeler 2006-05-16 03:15:11 IMMUTABLE?
Previous Message Lincoln Yeoh 2006-05-14 08:31:00 Re: [PERFORM] Arguments Pro/Contra Software Raid