| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Mike Mascari <mascarm(at)mascari(dot)com> |
| Cc: | pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: A few notes |
| Date: | 2003-05-31 16:05:30 |
| Message-ID: | 20713.1054397130@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Mike Mascari <mascarm(at)mascari(dot)com> writes:
> ... is it possible the GEQO threshold, as a default, is too low?
It's been on the TODO list for awhile to investigate whether the current
default is still appropriate. A lot of planner details have changed
since we last twiddled it, and you're not the first to suggest that it
may need to be twiddled again. But no one's provided more than
anecdotal evidence. If you want to do some measurements to determine
where the best crossover point is now, go to it ...
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tom Lane | 2003-05-31 16:49:00 | Re: [HACKERS] Are we losing momentum? |
| Previous Message | Peter Eisentraut | 2003-05-31 15:56:52 | Use of Intel compiler on Linux |