X-Original-To: pgsql-performance-postgresql.org@localhost.postgresql.org Received: from localhost (unknown [200.46.204.144]) by svr1.postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id B7D06529BF; Fri, 22 Jul 2005 14:32:06 -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 59657-03; Fri, 22 Jul 2005 17:32:05 +0000 (GMT) Received: from cmailg4.svr.pol.co.uk (cmailg4.svr.pol.co.uk [195.92.195.174]) by svr1.postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4C5425293D; Fri, 22 Jul 2005 14:32:04 -0300 (ADT) Received: from modem-3356.lynx.dialup.pol.co.uk ([217.135.205.28] helo=192.168.0.102) by cmailg4.svr.pol.co.uk with esmtp (Exim 4.41) id 1Dw1NS-0006CU-Ny; Fri, 22 Jul 2005 18:32:02 +0100 Subject: Re: [HACKERS] Planner doesn't look at LIMIT? From: Simon Riggs To: Tom Lane Cc: Dawid Kuroczko , pgsql-performance@postgreSQL.org, pgsql-hackers@postgreSQL.org 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> Content-Type: text/plain Organization: 2nd Quadrant Date: Fri, 22 Jul 2005 18:31:58 +0100 Message-Id: <1122053518.21502.180.camel@localhost.localdomain> Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Evolution 2.0.2 (2.0.2-3) Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Virus-Scanned: by amavisd-new at hub.org X-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.052 tagged_above=0 required=5 tests=AWL, FORGED_RCVD_HELO X-Spam-Level: X-Archive-Number: 200507/354 X-Sequence-Number: 13595 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