| From: | Stephen Frost <sfrost(at)snowman(dot)net> |
|---|---|
| To: | Atri Sharma <atri(dot)jiit(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, Andres Freund <andres(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, David Rowley <dgrowleyml(at)gmail(dot)com>, Mart Kelder <mart(at)kelder31(dot)nl>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>, Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
| Subject: | Re: Removing INNER JOINs |
| Date: | 2014-12-03 17:57:31 |
| Message-ID: | 20141203175731.GH3342@tamriel.snowman.net |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
* Atri Sharma (atri(dot)jiit(at)gmail(dot)com) wrote:
> Agreed, but in some cases, we could possibly make some assumptions (if
> there is no index, if a large fraction of table will be returned in scan,
> FunctionScan).
All neat ideas but how about we get something which works in the way
being asked for before we start trying to optimize it..? Maybe I'm
missing something, but getting all of this infrastructure into place and
making sure things aren't done to the plan tree which shouldn't be (or
done to all of them if necessary..) is enough that we should get that
bit done first and then worry if there are ways we can further improve
things..
THanks,
Stephen
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Atri Sharma | 2014-12-03 18:08:04 | Re: Removing INNER JOINs |
| Previous Message | Atri Sharma | 2014-12-03 17:54:32 | Re: Removing INNER JOINs |