From: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
To: Joshua D. Drake <jd@commandprompt.com>
Cc: Robert Treat <xzilla@users.sourceforge.net>
Cc: pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org, Peter Eisentraut <peter_e@gmx.net>
Cc: Greg Smith <gsmith@gregsmith.com>
Cc: Andreas Pflug <pgadmin@pse-consulting.de>
Cc: Decibel! <decibel@decibel.org>
Cc: Josh Berkus <josh@agliodbs.com>
Subject: Re: Overhauling GUCS
Date: Fri, 06 Jun 2008 22:00:41 -0400
Message-ID: <9606.1212804041@sss.pgh.pa.us> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <1212800891.14299.35.camel@jd-laptop>
References: <48409D1E.3070208@agliodbs.com>
<29525.1212613052@sss.pgh.pa.us>
<200806061435.01196.peter_e@gmx.net>
<200806061624.29105.xzilla@users.sourceforge.net>
<8358.1212797962@sss.pgh.pa.us>
<1212800891.14299.35.camel@jd-laptop>
"Joshua D. Drake" <jd@commandprompt.com> writes:
> Not surprising really. It is a simple adjustment to make and it also is
> easy to spot when its a problem. However it is not trivial to test for
> (in terms of time and effort). I know 10 is wrong and so do you.
Sure. But what is right? I'm afraid to just push it to (say) 100
because of the possibility of O(N^2) behavior in eqjoinsel. Somebody
needs to do some measurements on somewhat realistic scenarios.
regards, tom lane
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: tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us, jd@commandprompt.com, xzilla@users.sourceforge.net, peter_e@gmx.net, gsmith@gregsmith.com, pgadmin@pse-consulting.de, decibel@decibel.org, josh@agliodbs.com
Subject: Re: Overhauling GUCS
In-Reply-To: <9606.1212804041@sss.pgh.pa.us>
* 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