Received: from localhost (wm.hub.org [200.46.204.128]) by postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 654A59FB1DC for ; Thu, 12 Oct 2006 11:44:31 -0300 (ADT) Received: from postgresql.org ([200.46.204.71]) by localhost (mx1.hub.org [200.46.204.128]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 78562-07 for ; Thu, 12 Oct 2006 14:44:28 +0000 (UTC) X-Greylist: from auto-whitelisted by SQLgrey- Received: from sss.pgh.pa.us (sss.pgh.pa.us [66.207.139.130]) by postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id C55CE9FA4C5 for ; Thu, 12 Oct 2006 11:44:27 -0300 (ADT) Received: from sss2.sss.pgh.pa.us (tgl@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by sss.pgh.pa.us (8.13.6/8.13.6) with ESMTP id k9CEiKEF010363; Thu, 12 Oct 2006 10:44:21 -0400 (EDT) To: "Jim C. Nasby" cc: Mark Kirkwood , "H.J. Sanders" , pgsql-performance@postgresql.org Subject: Re: FW: Simple join optimized badly? In-reply-to: <20061012135248.GS28647@nasby.net> References: <452E11FB.7070704@paradise.net.nz> <20061012135248.GS28647@nasby.net> Comments: In-reply-to "Jim C. Nasby" message dated "Thu, 12 Oct 2006 08:52:49 -0500" Date: Thu, 12 Oct 2006 10:44:20 -0400 Message-ID: <10362.1160664260@sss.pgh.pa.us> From: Tom Lane X-Virus-Scanned: Maia Mailguard 1.0.1 X-Archive-Number: 200610/232 X-Sequence-Number: 21361 "Jim C. Nasby" writes: > If someone's going to commit to putting effort into improving the > planner then that's wonderful. But I can't recall any significant > planner improvements since min/max (which I'd argue was more of a bug > fix than an improvement). Hmph. Apparently I've wasted most of the last five years. regards, tom lane