Re: Review remove {join,from}_collapse_limit, add enable_join_ordering
От | Andres Freund |
---|---|
Тема | Re: Review remove {join,from}_collapse_limit, add enable_join_ordering |
Дата | |
Msg-id | 200907161518.02401.andres@anarazel.de обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: Review remove {join,from}_collapse_limit, add enable_join_ordering (Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>) |
Ответы |
Re: Review remove {join,from}_collapse_limit, add enable_join_ordering
Re: Review remove {join,from}_collapse_limit, add enable_join_ordering |
Список | pgsql-hackers |
On Thursday 16 July 2009 15:13:02 Tom Lane wrote: > Andres Freund <andres@anarazel.de> writes: > > The queries on the second reporting schema unfortunately are different. > > Its the one were I copied the crazy example I attached in the original > > thread. With geqo=off a good part of the queries used daily use too much > > memory to plan sensibly and geqo=on outright fails with: > > "Error: Failed to make a valid plan" > > on some. > We're not going to be able to fix this unless you show us examples. In the other thread I attached a similar to the real schema + example query. Not enough? And why? > > Noticeable even some plans which were plannable in reasonable time before > > now are problematic with enable_join_ordering=false! > And this even more so --- it doesn't make any sense at all. Why? With a high from_collapse_limit more subqueries get inlined - before inlining they get planned separately. > > So, while I think the changes are principally a good idea, as > > {from,join}_collapse_limit are a bit confusing options, I personally! do > > not think geqo is ready for it today, especially as the benefit is > > relatively small. > In general I think that any such bugs are there anyway and need to be > fixed anyway. Understandable. Andres
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: