On Thu, Oct 12, 2006 at 01:58:22PM -0700, Josh Berkus wrote:
> > Unless you've got a time machine or a team of coders in your back
> > pocket, I don't see how the planner will suddenly become perfect in
> > 8.4...
>
> Since you're not a core code contributor, I really don't see why you
> continue
"Jim C. Nasby" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> I completely agree that it's much better *in the long run* to improve
> the planner and the statistics system so that we don't need hints. But
> there's been no plan put forward for how to do that, which means we also
> have no idea when some of these pr
> I completely agree that it's much better *in the long run* to improve
> the planner and the statistics system so that we don't need hints. But
> there's been no plan put forward for how to do that, which means we
also
> have no idea when some of these problems will be resolved. If someone
> comes
Jim,
> Well, that's not what I said (my point being that until the planner and
> stats are perfect you need a way to over-ride them)... but I've also
> never said hints would be faster or easier than stats modification (I
> said I hope they would).
Yes, you did. Repeatedly. On this and other th
Andreas,
> I think we need to more precisely define the problems of our system with
> point in time statistics
>
> -- no reaction to degree of other concurrent activity
> -- no way to react to abnormal skew that only persists for a very short
> duration
> -- too late reaction to changing distribut
On Fri, Oct 13, 2006 at 03:57:23PM -0700, Josh Berkus wrote:
> Jim,
>
> > Well, that's not what I said (my point being that until the planner and
> > stats are perfect you need a way to over-ride them)... but I've also
> > never said hints would be faster or easier than stats modification (I
> > s
Jim C. Nasby wrote:
> So, does anyone out there have a plan for how we could give user's the
> ability to control the planner at a per-table level in 8.3 or even 8.4?
Per-table level? Some of the problems that have been put forward have
to do with table combinations (for example selectivity of j
"Jim C. Nasby" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Let me clarify, because that's not what I meant. Right now, there's not
> even a shadow of a design for anything else, and this is a tough nut to
> crack.
I think you are not exactly measuring on a level playing field. On the
textually-embedded-hints s
