Re: Function execution costs 'n all that
От | Neil Conway |
---|---|
Тема | Re: Function execution costs 'n all that |
Дата | |
Msg-id | 1168893332.6174.127.camel@localhost.localdomain обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: Function execution costs 'n all that (Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>) |
Ответы |
Re: Function execution costs 'n all that
Re: Function execution costs 'n all that |
Список | pgsql-hackers |
On Mon, 2007-01-15 at 15:05 -0500, Tom Lane wrote: > maybe we should just do the constant for starters and see how many > people really want to write C-code estimators ... +1 BTW, your proposal would still pushdown all qualifiers, right? Hellerstein's xfunc work discusses situations in which it makes sense to pullup expensive qualifiers above joins, for example, in order to reduce the number of tuples the qualifier is applied to. Unfortunately, this would probably increase the optimizer's search space by a fairly significant degree, so it might need to be controlled by a GUC variable, or only applied when the estimated cost of applying a qualifier is particularly large relative to the total estimated cost of the plan. -Neil
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: