Re: Removing INNER JOINs
| От | Atri Sharma |
|---|---|
| Тема | Re: Removing INNER JOINs |
| Дата | |
| Msg-id | CAOeZVidhjmEguSF+tBrF1_UkU5yvfEz9LJ-mhMqmHnsJU9ev3A@mail.gmail.com обсуждение исходный текст |
| Ответ на | Re: Removing INNER JOINs (Stephen Frost <sfrost@snowman.net>) |
| Ответы |
Re: Removing INNER JOINs
|
| Список | pgsql-hackers |
On Wed, Dec 3, 2014 at 11:27 PM, Stephen Frost <sfrost@snowman.net> wrote:
* Atri Sharma (atri.jiit@gmail.com) wrote:
> Agreed, but in some cases, we could possibly make some assumptions (if
> there is no index, if a large fraction of table will be returned in scan,
> FunctionScan).
All neat ideas but how about we get something which works in the way
being asked for before we start trying to optimize it..? Maybe I'm
missing something, but getting all of this infrastructure into place and
making sure things aren't done to the plan tree which shouldn't be (or
done to all of them if necessary..) is enough that we should get that
bit done first and then worry if there are ways we can further improve
things..
Right,sorry for digressing.
I think we are in agreement as to what needs to be done (start with a plan, note ideas and replan if necessary). The idea of executor modifying the plan (or personally, even choosing the plan) seems counterintuitive.
Does it also make sense to recalculate the costs from scratch for the replan? It might be, I am just asking.
Regards,
Atri
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: