Tom Lane wrote:
> Bruce Momjian writes:
> > Is this a TODO item?
>
> We already have a TODO item about replacing GEQO.
>
> However, linking to this thread might be more useful than the 404 that's
> there now...
Removed and added.
--
Bruce Momjian http://momjian.us
EnterpriseDB
Bruce Momjian writes:
> Is this a TODO item?
We already have a TODO item about replacing GEQO.
However, linking to this thread might be more useful than the 404 that's
there now...
regards, tom lane
--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
Is this a TODO item?
---
Adriano Lange wrote:
> Hi
>
> Tobias Zahn escreveu:
> > Hello Adriano,
> > thank you very much for posting your patch. I think it will help to make
> > further work easier, too. I hope you don't min
Hi
Tobias Zahn escreveu:
Hello Adriano,
thank you very much for posting your patch. I think it will help to make
further work easier, too. I hope you don't mind when I ask you some
questions.
When you said that this new approach is worse or equal than GEQO, did
you refer to performance or to th
Hello Adriano,
thank you very much for posting your patch. I think it will help to make
further work easier, too. I hope you don't mind when I ask you some
questions.
When you said that this new approach is worse or equal than GEQO, did
you refer to performance or to the quality of results?
Why do
Adriano Lange escreveu:
I implemented the 2PO algorithm last month but I didn't have much time
to do an extensive test and to comment all code. The code was posted in
this list in a previous thread. In that occasion, I was interested in a
kind of cache structure to avoid the constructing a comp
Robert Haas escreveu:
On Wed, May 13, 2009 at 4:14 PM, Tobias Zahn wrote:
Hello,
thank you for posting the paper, it was quite interesting to read. I
think it would be a good idea to give the two-phase optimization a try.
As far as I know and understand the current (geqo) optimizer source,
many
On Wed, May 13, 2009 at 4:14 PM, Tobias Zahn wrote:
> Hello,
> thank you for posting the paper, it was quite interesting to read. I
> think it would be a good idea to give the two-phase optimization a try.
> As far as I know and understand the current (geqo) optimizer source,
> many important part
Hello,
thank you for posting the paper, it was quite interesting to read. I
think it would be a good idea to give the two-phase optimization a try.
As far as I know and understand the current (geqo) optimizer source,
many important parts are already there. For example, we can calculate
the costs of
On Sat, May 2, 2009 at 11:37 AM, Tom Lane wrote:
> Tobias Zahn writes:
>> I didn't not get any response to my initial message below. Now I am
>> wondering if nobody is into the optimizer or if my question was just too
>> stupid. Could you please give me some clues? Your help would really be
>> ap
Hi,
Le 2 mai 09 à 17:37, Tom Lane a écrit :
My knowledge of AI search algorithms is about 20 years obsolete, but
last I heard simulated annealing had overtaken genetic algorithms for
many purposes. It might be interesting to try a rewrite based on SA;
or maybe there's something better out there
Tobias Zahn writes:
> I didn't not get any response to my initial message below. Now I am
> wondering if nobody is into the optimizer or if my question was just too
> stupid. Could you please give me some clues? Your help would really be
> appreciated.
Well, nobody's into GEQO very much. I took
Hello again,
I didn't not get any response to my initial message below. Now I am
wondering if nobody is into the optimizer or if my question was just too
stupid. Could you please give me some clues? Your help would really be
appreciated.
Regards,
Tobias
> Hello,
> I was digging through the optimi
13 matches
Mail list logo
