| From: | Kevin Brown <kevin(at)sysexperts(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: Overriding the optimizer |
| Date: | 2005-12-16 05:48:55 |
| Message-ID: | 20051216054855.GD691@filer |
| Views: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-performance |
Craig A. James wrote:
> Kevin Brown wrote:
> >>Hints are dangerous, and I consider them a last resort.
> >
> >If you consider them a last resort, then why do you consider them to
> >be a better alternative than a workaround such as turning off
> >enable_seqscan, when all the other tradeoffs are considered?
>
> If I understand enable_seqscan, it's an all-or-nothing affair. Turning it
> off turns it off for the whole database, right? The same is true of all
> of the planner-tuning parameters in the postgres conf file.
Nope. What's in the conf file are the defaults. You can change them
on a per-connection basis, via the SET command. Thus, before doing
your problematic query:
SET enable_seqscan = off;
and then, after your query is done,
SET enable_seqscan = on;
> >If your argument is that planner hints would give you finer grained
> >control, then the question is whether you'd rather the developers
> >spend their time implementing planner hints or improving the planner.
>
> I agree 100% -- I'd much prefer a better planner. But when it comes down
> to a do-or-die situation, you need a hack, some sort of workaround, to get
> you working *today*.
And that's why I was asking about workarounds versus planner hints. I
expect that the situations in which the planner gets things wrong
*and* where there's no workaround are very rare indeed.
--
Kevin Brown kevin(at)sysexperts(dot)com
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Bruno Wolff III | 2005-12-16 05:55:11 | Re: Overriding the optimizer |
| Previous Message | Kevin Brown | 2005-12-16 05:44:58 | Re: How much expensive are row level statistics? |