On Tue, Apr 14, 2020 at 10:21 AM Tom Lane wrote:
> Awhile back I'd looked into getting rid of disable_cost altogether
> by dint of not generating disabled paths. It's harder than it
> sounds. We could perhaps change this particular case, but it's
> not clear that there's any real benefit of maki
Amit Langote writes:
> I was really thinking of this in terms of planner effort, which for
> creating an index path is more than creating sequential path, although
> sure the payoff can be great. That is, I want the planner to avoid
> creating index paths *to save cycles*, but see no way of making
Amit Langote writes:
> I am saying that instead of building index path with disabled cost,
> just don't build it at all. A base rel will always have a sequetial
> path, even though with disabled cost if enable_seqscan = off.
Awhile back I'd looked into getting rid of disable_cost altogether
by di
On Tue, Apr 14, 2020 at 6:12 PM Andy Fan wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 14, 2020 at 4:58 PM Amit Langote wrote:
>> I am saying that instead of building index path with disabled cost,
>> just don't build it at all. A base rel will always have a sequetial
>> path, even though with disabled cost if enable_seq
On Tue, Apr 14, 2020 at 5:12 PM Andy Fan wrote:
>
>
> On Tue, Apr 14, 2020 at 4:58 PM Amit Langote
> wrote:
>
>> On Tue, Apr 14, 2020 at 5:29 PM Andy Fan
>> wrote:
>> > On Tue, Apr 14, 2020 at 3:40 PM Amit Langote
>> wrote:
>> >> On Tue, Apr 14, 2020 at 4:13 PM Richard Guo
>> wrote:
>> >> > O
On Tue, Apr 14, 2020 at 4:58 PM Amit Langote
wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 14, 2020 at 5:29 PM Andy Fan wrote:
> > On Tue, Apr 14, 2020 at 3:40 PM Amit Langote
> wrote:
> >> On Tue, Apr 14, 2020 at 4:13 PM Richard Guo
> wrote:
> >> > On Tue, Apr 14, 2020 at 2:44 PM Amit Langote
> wrote:
> >> >> Maybe
On Tue, Apr 14, 2020 at 5:29 PM Andy Fan wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 14, 2020 at 3:40 PM Amit Langote wrote:
>> On Tue, Apr 14, 2020 at 4:13 PM Richard Guo wrote:
>> > On Tue, Apr 14, 2020 at 2:44 PM Amit Langote
>> > wrote:
>> >> Maybe I am missing something obvious, but is it intentional that
>> >>
On Tue, Apr 14, 2020 at 3:40 PM Amit Langote
wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 14, 2020 at 4:13 PM Richard Guo
> wrote:
> > On Tue, Apr 14, 2020 at 2:44 PM Amit Langote
> wrote:
> >> Maybe I am missing something obvious, but is it intentional that
> >> enable_indexscan is checked by cost_index(), that is, *
On Tue, Apr 14, 2020 at 4:13 PM Richard Guo wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 14, 2020 at 2:44 PM Amit Langote wrote:
>> Maybe I am missing something obvious, but is it intentional that
>> enable_indexscan is checked by cost_index(), that is, *after* creating
>> an index path? I was expecting that if enable_
On Tue, Apr 14, 2020 at 2:44 PM Amit Langote
wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Maybe I am missing something obvious, but is it intentional that
> enable_indexscan is checked by cost_index(), that is, *after* creating
> an index path? I was expecting that if enable_indexscan is off, then
> no index paths would be
Hi,
Maybe I am missing something obvious, but is it intentional that
enable_indexscan is checked by cost_index(), that is, *after* creating
an index path? I was expecting that if enable_indexscan is off, then
no index paths would be generated to begin with, because I thought
they are optional.
-
11 matches
Mail list logo