On 12/6/15 10:38 AM, Tom Lane wrote:
I said "in most cases". You can find example cases to support almost any weird planner optimization no matter how expensive and single-purpose; but that is the wrong way to think about it. What you have to think about is average cases, and in particular, not putting a drag on planning time in cases where no benefit ensues. We're not committing any patches that give one uncommon case an 1100X speedup by penalizing every other query 10%, or even 1%; especially not when there may be other ways to fix it.
This is a problem that seriously hurts Postgres in data warehousing applications. We can't keep ignoring optimizations that provide even as little as 10% execution improvements for 10x worse planner performance, because in a warehouse it's next to impossible for planning time to matter.
Obviously it'd be great if there was a fast, easy way to figure out whether a query would be expensive enough to go the whole 9 yards on planning it but at this point I suspect a simple GUC would be a big improvement.
-- Jim Nasby, Data Architect, Blue Treble Consulting, Austin TX Experts in Analytics, Data Architecture and PostgreSQL Data in Trouble? Get it in Treble! http://BlueTreble.com -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
