Thomas Lockhart wrote: > <snip> > If that were exposed, then folks could have additional control over the > optimizer no matter what syntax they prefer to use. And in fact could > alter the behavior without having to completely rewrite their query. > > One could also think about a threshold mechanism as you mention above, > but istm that allowing explicit control over reordering (fundamentally > different than, say, control over whether particular kinds of scans are > used) is the best first step. Not solely continuing to hide that control > behind heuristics involving query style and numbers of tables.
A la Oracle... here we come.... :-/ If we go down this track, although it would be beneficial in the short term, is it the best long term approach? I'm of a belief that *eventually* we really can take enough of the variables into consideration for planning the best query every time. I didn't say it was gunna be soon, nor easy though. + Justin > - Thomas > > ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- > TIP 5: Have you checked our extensive FAQ? > > http://www.postgresql.org/users-lounge/docs/faq.html -- "My grandfather once told me that there are two kinds of people: those who work and those who take the credit. He told me to try to be in the first group; there was less competition there." - Indira Gandhi ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- TIP 1: subscribe and unsubscribe commands go to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
