From: | Bruce Momjian <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us> |
---|---|
To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
Cc: | Neil Conway <neilc(at)samurai(dot)com>, Kris Jurka <jurka(at)ejurka(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: Optimizer generates bad plans. |
Date: | 2002-10-03 19:20:07 |
Message-ID: | 200210031920.g93JK7u00612@candle.pha.pa.us |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Tom Lane wrote:
> Neil Conway <neilc(at)samurai(dot)com> writes:
> > Interesting. The inconsistency you're seeing is a result of GEQO. I
> > would have hoped that it would have produced a better quality plan
> > more often, but apparently not. On my system, the regular query
> > optimizer handily beats GEQO for this query: it produces more
> > efficienty query plans 100% of the time and takes less time to do so.
> > For *this* query at least, raising geqo_threshold would be a good
> > idea, but that may not be true universally.
>
> The current GEQO threshold was set some time ago; since then, the
> regular optimizer has been improved while the GEQO code hasn't been
> touched. It might well be time to ratchet up the threshold.
>
> Anyone care to do some additional experiments?
Added to TODO:
* Check GUC geqo_threshold to see if it is still accurate
--
Bruce Momjian | http://candle.pha.pa.us
pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us | (610) 359-1001
+ If your life is a hard drive, | 13 Roberts Road
+ Christ can be your backup. | Newtown Square, Pennsylvania 19073
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Bruce Momjian | 2002-10-03 19:31:34 | Re: DROP COLUMN misbehaviour with multiple inheritance |
Previous Message | Bruce Momjian | 2002-10-03 19:17:42 | Re: AIX compilation problems (was Re: [HACKERS] Proposal ...) |