| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Martijn van Oosterhout <kleptog(at)svana(dot)org> |
| Cc: | Greg Stark <gsstark(at)mit(dot)edu>, andrew(at)supernews(dot)com, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: slow IN() clause for many cases |
| Date: | 2005-10-16 16:57:32 |
| Message-ID: | 8647.1129481852@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Martijn van Oosterhout <kleptog(at)svana(dot)org> writes:
> On Sun, Oct 16, 2005 at 12:03:33PM -0400, Greg Stark wrote:
>> That's true. That's why I was wondering more about cases where the client end
>> was going to read all the records until it found the record it's looking for
>> or found enough records for its purposes.
> I would argue that the client should simply ask for what it wants
> rather than filtering on the client end. Then PostgreSQL has the info
> to optimise appropriately.
Certainly, if you do not supply a LIMIT, there is no justification
at all for expecting the planner to prefer fast-start over
minimum-total-cost.
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Thomas Hallgren | 2005-10-16 17:02:54 | Re: Advice needed concerning Win32 signals |
| Previous Message | Thomas Hallgren | 2005-10-16 16:56:12 | Re: Advice needed concerning Win32 signals |