Re: [HACKERS] TODO list updated
От | Tom Lane |
---|---|
Тема | Re: [HACKERS] TODO list updated |
Дата | |
Msg-id | 11526.947732113@sss.pgh.pa.us обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: [HACKERS] TODO list updated (Bruce Momjian <pgman@candle.pha.pa.us>) |
Ответы |
Re: [HACKERS] TODO list updated
|
Список | pgsql-hackers |
Bruce Momjian <pgman@candle.pha.pa.us> writes: > We currently do not use indexes to handle ORDER BY because it is slower, Er, actually, we *do* use indexes for ORDER BY currently: regression=# explain select * from tenk1 order by unique1; NOTICE: QUERY PLAN: Index Scan using tenk1_unique1 on tenk1 (cost=760.00 rows=10000 width=148) If you start psql with PGOPTIONS="-fi" you can see that the optimizer believes an explicit sort would be much slower: regression=# explain select * from tenk1 order by unique1; NOTICE: QUERY PLAN: Sort (cost=3233.91 rows=10000 width=148) -> Seq Scan on tenk1 (cost=563.00 rows=10000 width=148) but (at least on my machine) the explicit sort is marginally faster. Evidently, the cost estimate for an explicit sort is *way* too high. I have been poking at this and am currently thinking that the CPU-vs- disk scaling constants (_cpu_page_weight_ and cpu_index_page_weight_) may be drastically off for modern hardware. This is one of the optimizer issues that I'm hoping to resolve for 7.0. regards, tom lane
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: