> Why would you care? Seems like forcing that to not happen is actively
> making it stupider.
To better compare the algorithms and possibly not for final solution at
the beginning. If we would implement 10 algorithms and want to pickup
just 3 best ones to be used and throw 7 away.
Later on, we can try to run just the one "very fast" algorithm and
depending on the cost decide whether we would run remaining 9 or
less or even none.
Yes, the example in dummy.c is really stupider, but it could be done
in more clever way.
> Well, I can see one likely problem: list_copy is a shallow copy and
> thus doesn't ensure that the second set of functions sees the same input
> data structures as the first. I know that geqo has to go through some
> special pushups to perform multiple invocations of the base planner,
> and I suspect you need that here too. Look at geqo_eval().
I'll explore that.
In response to
pgsql-patches by date
|Next:||From: Tom Lane||Date: 2007-09-25 23:58:06|
|Subject: Re: Configure template change to use SysV Semaphors on darwin |
|Previous:||From: Jaime Casanova||Date: 2007-09-25 23:08:33|
|Subject: Re: [HACKERS] 'Waiting on lock'|