From: Simon Riggs <simon@2ndquadrant.com>
To: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Cc: Dawid Kuroczko <qnex42@gmail.com>
Cc: pgsql-performance@postgreSQL.org
Cc: pgsql-hackers@postgreSQL.org
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] Planner doesn't look at LIMIT?
Date: Fri, 22 Jul 2005 18:31:58 +0100
Message-ID: <1122053518.21502.180.camel@localhost.localdomain> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <6440.1122049220@sss.pgh.pa.us>
References: <758d5e7f0507220210bfa4978@mail.gmail.com>
<29473.1122043197@sss.pgh.pa.us>
<6440.1122049220@sss.pgh.pa.us>
On Fri, 2005-07-22 at 12:20 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> I think that this refutes the original scheme of using the same fuzz
> factor for both startup and total cost comparisons, and therefore
> propose the attached patch.
>
> Comments?
Looks good. I think it explains a few other wierd perf reports also.
Best Regards, Simon Riggs
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-performance@postgresql.org
Cc: simon@2ndquadrant.com, tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us, qnex42@gmail.com, pgsql-hackers@postgreSQL.org
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] Planner doesn't look at LIMIT?
In-Reply-To: <1122053518.21502.180.camel@localhost.localdomain>
* 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