From: Don Baccus <dhogaza@pacifier.com>
Cc: pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org
Subject: Re: again on index usage
Date: Fri, 11 Jan 2002 09:01:46 -0800
Message-ID: <3C3F1A7A.7020404@pacifier.com> (raw)
References: <200201111642.g0BGghR14522@candle.pha.pa.us>
Bruce Momjian wrote:
>>Oracle partially mitigates the second effect by refusing to trash its
>>entire buffer cache on any given sequential scan. Or so I've been told
>>by people who know Oracle well. A repeat of the sequential scan will
>>still have to reread the entire table but that's true anyway if the
>>table's at least one block longer than available cache.
>>
>
> That is on our TODO list, at least.
I didn't realize this, it's good news. (I don't follow PG development
closely these days).
BTW overall I think the cost-estimating portion of the PG optimizer does
about as well as Oracle's. Oracle is a lot smarter about doing
transformations of certain types of queries (turning "scalar in (select
...)" into something akin to an "exists") but of course this has nothing
to do with estimating the cost of index vs. sequential scans.
--
Don Baccus
Portland, OR
http://donb.photo.net, http://birdnotes.net, http://openacs.org
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Reply to all the recipients using the --to and --cc options:
reply via email
To: pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org
Cc: dhogaza@pacifier.com
Subject: Re: again on index usage
In-Reply-To: <3C3F1A7A.7020404@pacifier.com>
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
This inbox is served by DDX for PostgreSQL; see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox