Re: *_collapse_limit, geqo_threshold

From: Jan Urbański <wulczer(at)wulczer(dot)org>
To: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
Cc: Kevin Grittner <Kevin(dot)Grittner(at)wicourts(dot)gov>, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org, Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de>
Subject: Re: *_collapse_limit, geqo_threshold
Date: 2009-07-08 08:23:42
Message-ID: 4A54578E.10404@wulczer.org
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Tom Lane wrote:
> "Kevin Grittner" <Kevin(dot)Grittner(at)wicourts(dot)gov> writes:
>> I guess the question is whether there is anyone who has had a contrary
>> experience. (There must have been some benchmarks to justify adding
>> geqo at some point?)
>
> The CVS history shows that geqo was integrated on 1997-02-19, which
> I think means that it must have been developed against Postgres95

> So while I don't doubt that geqo was absolutely essential when it was
> written, it's fair to question whether it still provides a real win.
> And we could definitely stand to take another look at the default
> thresholds.

Well there is a TODO item about implementing an alternative to GEQO
(which is being treated more and more as the underdog of the project):
http://archives.postgresql.org/message-id/15658.1241278636%40sss.pgh.pa.us

Would people be interested in someone working on that item?

Cheers,
Jan

In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Dean Rasheed 2009-07-08 09:17:24 Re: WIP: Deferrable unique constraints
Previous Message Dimitri Fontaine 2009-07-08 08:06:08 Re: Re: Synch Rep: direct transfer of WAL file from the primary to the standby