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 A38E652995;
	Sat, 23 Jul 2005 07:42:44 -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 70068-03; Sat, 23 Jul 2005 10:42:36 +0000 (GMT)
Received: from colo.samason.me.uk (unknown [69.55.228.22])
	by svr1.postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id C2AEC52993;
	Sat, 23 Jul 2005 07:42:35 -0300 (ADT)
Received: from colo.samason.me.uk (colo [69.55.228.22])
	by colo.samason.me.uk (8.12.11/8.12.11) with ESMTP id j6NAgZR8011880;
	Sat, 23 Jul 2005 11:42:35 +0100 (BST)
	(envelope-from sam@colo.samason.me.uk)
Received: (from sam@localhost)
	by colo.samason.me.uk (8.12.11/8.12.11/Submit) id j6NAgZEt011877;
	Sat, 23 Jul 2005 11:42:35 +0100 (BST) (envelope-from sam)
Date: Sat, 23 Jul 2005 11:42:35 +0100
From: Sam Mason <sam@samason.me.uk>
To: pgsql-performance@postgresql.org, pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] Planner doesn't look at LIMIT?
Message-ID: <20050723104235.GM62747@colo.samason.me.uk>
Mail-Followup-To: Sam Mason <sam@samason.me.uk>,
	pgsql-performance@postgresql.org, pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org
References: <758d5e7f0507220210bfa4978@mail.gmail.com>
	<29473.1122043197@sss.pgh.pa.us> <6440.1122049220@sss.pgh.pa.us>
	<1122053518.21502.180.camel@localhost.localdomain>
	<7214.1122055577@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <7214.1122055577@sss.pgh.pa.us>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.2.1i
X-Virus-Scanned: by amavisd-new at hub.org
X-Spam-Status: No, hits=0 tagged_above=0 required=5 tests=
X-Spam-Level: 
X-Archive-Number: 200507/358
X-Sequence-Number: 13599

Tom Lane wrote:
>Could be.  I went back to look at Sam Mason's report about three weeks
>ago, and it definitely seems to explain his issue.

I've just built a patched version as well and it appears to be doing
what I think is the right thing now.  I.e. actually picking the
plan with the lower cost.

Thanks!


  Sam