Re: Cost-based optimizers

From: Christopher Kings-Lynne <chriskl(at)familyhealth(dot)com(dot)au>
To: Christopher Browne <cbbrowne(at)acm(dot)org>
Cc: pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: Cost-based optimizers
Date: 2005-12-13 04:44:50
Message-ID: 439E51C2.7060703@familyhealth.com.au
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

> I saw it in print; the only thing that seemed interesting about it was
> the recommendation that query optimization be biased towards the
> notion of "stable plans," query plans that may not be the most
> "aggressively fast," but which don't fall apart into hideous
> performance if the estimates are a little bit off.

And the answer is interesting as well:

"I think we have to approach it in two ways. One is that you have to be
able to execute good plans, and during the execution of a plan you want
to notice when the actual data is deviating dramatically from what you
expected. If you expected five rows and you’ve got a million, chances
are your plan is not going to do well because you chose it based on the
assumption of five. Thus, being able to correct mid-course is an area of
enhancement for query optimizers that IBM is pursuing."

Hmmm dynamic re-planning!

Chris

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Andreas Pflug 2005-12-13 05:07:08 Re: pg_relation_size locking
Previous Message Luke Lonergan 2005-12-13 04:43:07 Re: Which qsort is used