Hi,
On 4/16/21 3:09 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
> I wrote:
>> ... The code to select the
>> right child path would be approximately like get_cheapest_fractional_path,
>> except that you need to restrict it to paths with the right sort order.
>
> Duh, I forgot about get_cheapest_fractional_path_for_pathke
I wrote:
> ... The code to select the
> right child path would be approximately like get_cheapest_fractional_path,
> except that you need to restrict it to paths with the right sort order.
Duh, I forgot about get_cheapest_fractional_path_for_pathkeys().
regards, tom lane
Tomas Vondra writes:
> On 2/26/21 4:00 AM, Tom Lane wrote:
>> Hmm. While the search should be exhaustive, there are pretty
>> aggressive pruning heuristics (mostly in and around add_path()) that
>> can cause us to drop paths that don't seem to be enough better than
>> other alternatives. I suspec
On 2/26/21 4:00 AM, Tom Lane wrote:
> Arne Roland writes:
>> I want to examine the exhaustive search and not the geqo here. I'd
>> expect the exhaustive search to give the plan with the lowest cost,
>> but apparently it doesn't. I have found a few dozen different
>> querys where that isn't the ca
-performa...@postgresql.org
Subject: Re: Disabling options lowers the estimated cost of a query
Arne Roland writes:
> I want to examine the exhaustive search and not the geqo here. I'd expect the
> exhaustive search to give the plan with the lowest cost, but apparently it
> doesn
Arne Roland writes:
> I want to examine the exhaustive search and not the geqo here. I'd expect the
> exhaustive search to give the plan with the lowest cost, but apparently it
> doesn't. I have found a few dozen different querys where that isn't the case.
> I attached one straight forward exam
