On Sat, Sep 1, 2012 at 06:23:59PM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> Robert Haas writes:
> > On Tue, May 22, 2012 at 1:50 AM, Tom Lane wrote:
> >> Currently, the planner keeps paths that appear to win on the grounds of
> >> either cheapest startup cost or cheapest total cost. It suddenly struck
> >> me t
Robert Haas writes:
> On Tue, May 22, 2012 at 1:50 AM, Tom Lane wrote:
>> Currently, the planner keeps paths that appear to win on the grounds of
>> either cheapest startup cost or cheapest total cost. It suddenly struck
>> me that in many simple cases (viz, those with no LIMIT, EXISTS, cursor
>
On Tue, May 22, 2012 at 08:29:48AM -0400, Robert Haas wrote:
> On Tue, May 22, 2012 at 1:50 AM, Tom Lane wrote:
> > Currently, the planner keeps paths that appear to win on the grounds of
> > either cheapest startup cost or cheapest total cost. It suddenly struck
> > me that in many simple cases
On Tue, May 22, 2012 at 1:50 AM, Tom Lane wrote:
> Currently, the planner keeps paths that appear to win on the grounds of
> either cheapest startup cost or cheapest total cost. It suddenly struck
> me that in many simple cases (viz, those with no LIMIT, EXISTS, cursor
> fast-start preference, et
On 22 May 2012 12:12, PostgreSQL - Hans-Jürgen Schönig
wrote:
>
> On May 22, 2012, at 9:57 AM, Simon Riggs wrote:
>
>> On 22 May 2012 06:50, Tom Lane wrote:
>>
>>> Currently, the planner keeps paths that appear to win on the grounds of
>>> either cheapest startup cost or cheapest total cost. It
On May 22, 2012, at 9:57 AM, Simon Riggs wrote:
> On 22 May 2012 06:50, Tom Lane wrote:
>
>> Currently, the planner keeps paths that appear to win on the grounds of
>> either cheapest startup cost or cheapest total cost. It suddenly struck
>> me that in many simple cases (viz, those with no LI
On 22 May 2012 06:50, Tom Lane wrote:
> Currently, the planner keeps paths that appear to win on the grounds of
> either cheapest startup cost or cheapest total cost. It suddenly struck
> me that in many simple cases (viz, those with no LIMIT, EXISTS, cursor
> fast-start preference, etc) we coul
