From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
---|---|
To: | Merlin Moncure <mmoncure(at)gmail(dot)com> |
Cc: | Matthew Wakeling <matthew(at)flymine(dot)org>, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, Grzegorz Jaśkiewicz <gryzman(at)gmail(dot)com>, pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: Really dumb planner decision |
Date: | 2009-04-16 13:49:28 |
Message-ID: | 16192.1239889768@sss.pgh.pa.us |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-performance |
Merlin Moncure <mmoncure(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
> On Thu, Apr 16, 2009 at 8:05 AM, Matthew Wakeling <matthew(at)flymine(dot)org> wrote:
>> That solves the problem. So, a view is treated as a subquery then?
> no...the view is simply inlined into the query (think C macro) using
> the rules. You just bumped into an arbitrary (and probably too low)
> limit into the number of tables the planner can look at in terms of
> optimizing certain types of plans.
Bear in mind that those limits exist to keep you from running into
exponentially increasing planning time when the size of a planning
problem gets big. "Raise 'em to the moon" isn't really a sane strategy.
It might be that we could get away with raising them by one or two given
the general improvement in hardware since the values were last looked
at; but I'd be hesitant to push the defaults further than that.
regards, tom lane
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Kevin Grittner | 2009-04-16 14:11:14 | Re: Really dumb planner decision |
Previous Message | Merlin Moncure | 2009-04-16 12:11:30 | Re: Really dumb planner decision |