| From: | Matthew Wakeling <matthew(at)flymine(dot)org> |
|---|---|
| To: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Merlin Moncure <mmoncure(at)gmail(dot)com>, Grzegorz Jaśkiewicz <gryzman(at)gmail(dot)com>, pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: Really dumb planner decision |
| Date: | 2009-04-16 15:54:49 |
| Message-ID: | alpine.DEB.2.00.0904161651420.4053@aragorn.flymine.org |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-performance |
On Thu, 16 Apr 2009, Robert Haas wrote:
> I hasten to point out that I only suggested raising them to the moon
> as a DEBUGGING strategy, not a production configuration.
The problem is that we have created a view that by itself a very
time-consuming query to answer, relying on it being incorporated into a
query that will constrain it and cause it to be evaluated a lot quicker.
This kind of scenario kind of guarantees a bad plan as soon as the number
of tables reaches from_collapse_limit.
Matthew
--
Failure is not an option. It comes bundled with your Microsoft product.
-- Ferenc Mantfeld
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tom Lane | 2009-04-16 16:01:12 | Re: Shouldn't the planner have a higher cost for reverse index scans? |
| Previous Message | Lists | 2009-04-16 15:52:32 | Re: Shouldn't the planner have a higher cost for reverse index scans? |