Re: "Constraint exclusion" is not general enough

From: "Florian G(dot) Pflug" <fgp(at)phlo(dot)org>
To: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
Cc: Rod Taylor <pg(at)rbt(dot)ca>, Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org, Martin Lesser <ml-pgsql(at)bettercom(dot)de>
Subject: Re: "Constraint exclusion" is not general enough
Date: 2006-08-07 23:53:11
Message-ID: 44D7D267.7040506@phlo.org
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Tom Lane wrote:
> Rod Taylor <pg(at)rbt(dot)ca> writes:
>> A simple way of doing this might be to use a minimum cost number?
>
> But you don't have any cost numbers until after you've done the plan.

Couldn't this work similar to geqo_effort? The planner could
try planning the query using only cheap algorithmns, and if
the cost exceeds a certain value, it'd restart, and use
more sophisticated methods.

greetings, Florian Pflug

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Bruce Momjian 2006-08-08 01:23:26 Re: [HACKERS] [PATCHES] log_statement output for protocol
Previous Message Peter Eisentraut 2006-08-07 22:09:45 Re: psql: absolutes and toggles