X-Original-To: pgsql-docs-postgresql.org@localhost.postgresql.org Received: from localhost (unknown [200.46.204.144]) by svr1.postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2CAD0D1B37C for ; Sun, 25 Jul 2004 14:26:08 -0300 (ADT) Received: from svr1.postgresql.org ([200.46.204.71]) by localhost (av.hub.org [200.46.204.144]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 44607-03 for ; Sun, 25 Jul 2004 17:26:05 +0000 (GMT) Received: from sss.pgh.pa.us (sss.pgh.pa.us [66.207.139.130]) by svr1.postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 39F9FD1B1B4 for ; Sun, 25 Jul 2004 14:26:04 -0300 (ADT) Received: from sss2.sss.pgh.pa.us (tgl@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by sss.pgh.pa.us (8.12.11/8.12.11) with ESMTP id i6PHQ12F014575; Sun, 25 Jul 2004 13:26:01 -0400 (EDT) To: Bruno Wolff III Cc: Bruce Momjian , PostgreSQL-development , PostgreSQL-documentation Subject: Re: [HACKERS] 7.5 release notes In-reply-to: <20040725142937.GA5186@wolff.to> References: <200407250425.i6P4PhI29389@candle.pha.pa.us> <20040725142937.GA5186@wolff.to> Comments: In-reply-to Bruno Wolff III message dated "Sun, 25 Jul 2004 09:29:37 -0500" Date: Sun, 25 Jul 2004 13:26:01 -0400 Message-ID: <14574.1090776361@sss.pgh.pa.us> From: Tom Lane X-Virus-Scanned: by amavisd-new at hub.org X-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.0 tagged_above=0.0 required=5.0 tests= X-Spam-Level: X-Archive-Number: 200407/35 X-Sequence-Number: 2443 Bruno Wolff III writes: > In the following paragraph there appear to be two typos. I think > "optimizer make" should be "optimizer makes" and that "lose-source" > should be "closed-source". > It is difficult to explain all the optimizer improvements that go into a release like this. They involve complex adjustments to the logic used to select indexes, join methods, and join order. They are difficult to explain, but the result is that the optimizer make quicker and better choices in how to execute queries, resulting in improved performance. The close relationship between our developers and users reporting problems allows us to make rapid and complex optimizer improvements that would be very difficult for lose-source companies to emulate. I'd suggest removing the paragraph entirely, on the grounds that it is content-free fluff. regards, tom lane