From: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
To: Ben Chobot <bench@silentmedia.com>
Cc: Kevin Grittner <Kevin.Grittner@wicourts.gov>
Cc: pgsql-performance@postgresql.org
Subject: Re: 8.1 -> 8.4 regression
Date: Wed, 17 Feb 2010 00:34:37 -0500
Message-ID: <19449.1266384877@sss.pgh.pa.us> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <5FDB08C1-3835-4B80-835D-B44F483C3227@silentmedia.com>
References: <4B791AFF020000250002F2DD@gw.wicourts.gov>
<8D572A50-01C7-464B-8D0D-FCF19C53BC9C@silentmedia.com>
<1376.1266254788@sss.pgh.pa.us>
<5FDB08C1-3835-4B80-835D-B44F483C3227@silentmedia.com>
Ben Chobot <bench@silentmedia.com> writes:
> Awesome, that did the trick. Thanks Tom! So I understand better, why is my case not the normal, better case?
Well, the short answer is that the 8.4 changes here are in the nature of
two steps forward and one step back. The long-term goal is to increase
the planner's ability to choose among different join orders; but we're
getting rid of one restriction at a time, and sometimes the interactions
of those restrictions produce unwanted results like the older code being
able to find a better plan than the new code can.
> (I assume the long-term fix is post-9.0, right?)
Yeah, fraid so. I've been mostly buried in non-planner work in the 9.0
cycle, but hope to get back to this and other problems in the next
cycle.
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, bench@silentmedia.com, Kevin.Grittner@wicourts.gov
Subject: Re: 8.1 -> 8.4 regression
In-Reply-To: <19449.1266384877@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