From: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
To: Steinar H. Gunderson <sgunderson@bigfoot.com>
Cc: pgsql-performance@postgresql.org
Subject: Re: Weird performance drop after VACUUM
Date: Sat, 27 Aug 2005 11:05:01 -0400
Message-ID: <1404.1125155101@sss.pgh.pa.us> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20050827101945.GA18155@uio.no>
References: <1125093859.9329.30.camel@localhost.localdomain>
<26745.1125099111@sss.pgh.pa.us>
<20050827101945.GA18155@uio.no>
"Steinar H. Gunderson" <sgunderson@bigfoot.com> writes:
> On Fri, Aug 26, 2005 at 07:31:51PM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
>> Or you could just play with the order of the filter conditions ... for
>> example, the date condition at the end is probably far cheaper to test
>> than the text comparisons, so if that's fairly selective it'd be worth
>> putting it first.
> That's an interesting approach -- could the planner do such things itself?
It could, but it doesn't really have enough information. We don't
currently have any model that some operators are more expensive than
others. IIRC the only sort of reordering the current code will do
in a filter condition list is to push clauses involving sub-SELECTs
to the end.
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-performance@postgresql.org
Cc: tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us, sgunderson@bigfoot.com
Subject: Re: Weird performance drop after VACUUM
In-Reply-To: <1404.1125155101@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