Re: Mini improvement: statement_cost_limit

On Mon, Aug 04, 2008 at 02:35:07PM -0400, Robert Treat wrote:
> On Monday 04 August 2008 03:50:40 daveg wrote:
>
> That's great for you, I am talking in the scope of a general solution. (Note
> I'd also bet that even given the same hardware, different production loads
> can produce different relative mappings of cost vs. performance, but
> whatever)

Even on different hardware it would still likely warn of mistakes like
products due to missing join conditions etc.

> > > I still think it is worth revisiting what problems people are trying to
> > > solve, and see if there are better tools they can be given to solve them.
> > > Barring that, I suppose a crude solution is better than nothing, though
> > > I fear people might point at the crude solution as a good enough solution
> > > to justify not working on better solutions.
> >
> > Alerting developers and QA to potentially costly queries would help solve
> > some of the probems we are trying to solve. Better tools are welcome, an
> > argument that the good is the enemy of the best so we should be content
> > with nothing is not.
>
> And you'll note, I specifically said that a crude tool is better than nothing.

I released somewhat after I sent the above that it might have sounded a bit
snippy. I hope I have not offended.

> But your completely ignoring that a crude tool can often end-up as a foot-gun
> once relased into the wild.

I'm suggesting a warning, or even just a notice into the logs, I don't see
the footgun. What am I missing?

Regards

-dg

--
David Gould daveg(at)sonic(dot)net 510 536 1443 510 282 0869
If simplicity worked, the world would be overrun with insects.