Received: from localhost (mx1.hub.org [200.46.208.251]) by postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 764599FA376 for ; Tue, 10 Oct 2006 11:15:13 -0300 (ADT) Received: from postgresql.org ([200.46.204.71]) by localhost (mx1.hub.org [200.46.208.251]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 05673-08 for ; Tue, 10 Oct 2006 11:15:06 -0300 (ADT) 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 86ECE9F9FB1 for ; Tue, 10 Oct 2006 11:15:04 -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 k9AEEmpC017520; Tue, 10 Oct 2006 10:14:48 -0400 (EDT) To: "Jim C. Nasby" cc: Tobias Brox , Chris Browne , pgsql-performance@postgresql.org Subject: Re: Simple join optimized badly? In-reply-to: <20061010140050.GZ72517@nasby.net> References: <20061009213303.GA19144@oppetid.no> <20061009223030.GW72517@nasby.net> <9723.1160433916@sss.pgh.pa.us> <20061010140050.GZ72517@nasby.net> Comments: In-reply-to "Jim C. Nasby" message dated "Tue, 10 Oct 2006 09:00:50 -0500" Date: Tue, 10 Oct 2006 10:14:48 -0400 Message-ID: <17519.1160489688@sss.pgh.pa.us> From: Tom Lane X-Virus-Scanned: Maia Mailguard 1.0.1 X-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.091 tagged_above=0 required=5 tests=AWL, SPF_HELO_PASS, SPF_PASS X-Spam-Level: X-Archive-Number: 200610/184 X-Sequence-Number: 21313 "Jim C. Nasby" writes: > I'd rather have the ugly solution sooner rather than the elegant one > later (if ever). The trouble with that is that we couldn't ever get rid of it, and we'd be stuck with backward-compatibility concerns with the first (over simplified) design. It's important to get it right the first time, at least for stuff that you know perfectly well is going to end up embedded in application code. regards, tom lane