Re: enable_joinremoval

From: Greg Smith <greg(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>
To: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
Cc: Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: enable_joinremoval
Date: 2010-03-29 16:33:00
Message-ID: 4BB0D63C.90408@2ndquadrant.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Tom Lane wrote:
> The problem with this line of thought is that it imagines you can look
> at worked-out alternative plans. You can't, because the planner doesn't
> pursue rejected alternatives that far (and you'd not want to wait long
> enough for it to do so...)
>

Not on any production system, sure. I know plenty of people who would
gladly let a rejected plan enumerator run for *a day* on their
development box if it let them figure out exactly why the costing on the
plan they expected ended up higher than the plan they actually get.
While I know you don't run into this, regular people can easily spend a
week on one such problem without gaining even that much insight, given
the current level of instrumentation and diagnostic tools available.
"Read the source" and "ask Tom" are both effective ways to resolve that
but have their limits. (Not because of you, of course--my bigger
problem are people who just can't share their plans with the lists for
privacy or security reasons)

--
Greg Smith 2ndQuadrant US Baltimore, MD
PostgreSQL Training, Services and Support
greg(at)2ndQuadrant(dot)com www.2ndQuadrant.us

In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Pavel Stehule 2010-03-29 16:47:04 Re: proposal - structured funcid and lineno as new fields in error message
Previous Message Tom Lane 2010-03-29 16:32:46 Re: proposal - structured funcid and lineno as new fields in error message