Re: Posible planner improvement? - Mailing list pgsql-performance

From PFC
Subject Re: Posible planner improvement?
Date
Msg-id op.ubih81yvcigqcu@apollo13.peufeu.com
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: Posible planner improvement?  (Richard Huxton <dev@archonet.com>)
List pgsql-performance
On Wed, 21 May 2008 15:09:49 +0200, Richard Huxton <dev@archonet.com>
wrote:

> Luke Lonergan wrote:
>> The problem is that the implied join predicate is not being
>> propagated.  This is definitely a planner deficiency.
>
> IIRC only equality conditions are propagated and gt, lt, between aren't.
>   I seem to remember that the argument given was that the cost of
> checking for the ability to propagate was too high for the frequency
> when it ocurred.
>
> Of course, what was true for code and machines of 5 years ago might not
> be so today.
>

    Suggestion : when executing a one-off sql statement, optimizer should try
to offer "best effort while being fast" ; when making a plan that will be
reused many times (ie PREPARE, functions...) planning time could be
muuuuch longer...

pgsql-performance by date:

Previous
From: Richard Huxton
Date:
Subject: Re: "Big O" notation for postgres?
Next
From: PFC
Date:
Subject: Re: "Big O" notation for postgres?