Re: Mini improvement: statement_cost_limit

Josh Berkus wrote:
> Greg,
>
> > Well that's going to depend on the application.... But I suppose there's
> > nothing wrong with having options which aren't always a good idea to use. The
> > real question I guess is whether there's ever a situation where it would be a
> > good idea to use this. I'm not 100% sure.
>
> I can think of *lots*. Primarily, simple web applications, where
> queries are never supposed to take more than 50ms. If a query turns up
> with an estimated cost of 10000000000, then you know something's wrong;
> in the statistics if not in the query. In either case, that query has a
> good chance of dragging down the whole system.
>
> In such a production application, it is better to have false positives
> and reject otherwise-OK queries becuase their costing is wrong, than to
> let a single cartesian join bog down an application serving 5000
> simultaneous users. Further, with a SQL error, this would allow the

How about a simpler approach that throws an error or warning for
cartesian products? That seems fool-proof.

--
Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us> http://momjian.us
EnterpriseDB http://enterprisedb.com

+ If your life is a hard drive, Christ can be your backup. +