Skip site navigation (1)
Skip section navigation (2)
Peripheral Links
Header And Logo
|
Site Navigation
Re: FW: Simple join optimized badly?
- From: Mark Kirkwood <markir(at)paradise(dot)net(dot)nz>
- To: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
- Cc: "Jim C. Nasby" <jim(at)nasby(dot)net>, "H.J. Sanders" <hjs(at)rmax(dot)nl>, pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org
- Subject: Re: FW: Simple join optimized badly?
- Date: Fri, 13 Oct 2006 11:07:32 +1300
Tom Lane wrote:
"Jim C. Nasby" <jim(at)nasby(dot)net> writes:If someone's going to commit to putting effort into improving the planner then that's wonderful. But I can't recall any significant planner improvements since min/max (which I'd argue was more of a bug fix than an improvement).Hmph. Apparently I've wasted most of the last five years.
In my opinion your on-going well thought out planner improvements are *exactly* the approach we need to keep doing...
Cheers Mark
- References:
- FW: Simple join optimized badly?
- From: H.J. Sanders
- Re: FW: Simple join optimized badly?
- From: Mark Kirkwood
- Re: FW: Simple join optimized badly?
- From: Jim C. Nasby
- Re: FW: Simple join optimized badly?
- From: Tom Lane
- FW: Simple join optimized badly?
- Prev by Date: Re: [HACKERS] Hints proposal
- Next by Date: Re: Hints proposal
- Previous by thread: Re: FW: Simple join optimized badly?
- Next by thread: autovacuum not working?
- Indexes: