From: Jim C. Nasby <jim@nasby.net>
To: Mark Kirkwood <markir@paradise.net.nz>
Cc: H.J. Sanders <hjs@rmax.nl>
Cc: pgsql-performance@postgresql.org
Subject: Re: FW: Simple join optimized badly?
Date: Thu, 12 Oct 2006 08:52:49 -0500
Message-ID: <20061012135248.GS28647@nasby.net> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <452E11FB.7070704@paradise.net.nz>
References: <GMEAJIDMNDKCIHMMHDFLEEOHEGAA.hjs@rmax.nl>
<452E11FB.7070704@paradise.net.nz>
On Thu, Oct 12, 2006 at 10:59:23PM +1300, Mark Kirkwood wrote:
> H.J. Sanders wrote:
>
> > why not just like in some other (commercial) databases:
> >
> > a statement to say: use index ............
> >
> > I know this is against all though but if even the big ones can not resist
> > the pressure of their users, why not?
> >
>
> Yeah - some could not (e.g. Oracle), but some did (e.g. DB2), and it
> seemed (to me anyway) significant DB2's optimizer worked much better
> than Oracle's last time I used both of them (Oracle 8/9 and DB2 7/8).
If someone's going to commit to putting effort into improving the
planner then that's wonderful. But I can't recall any significant
planner improvements since min/max (which I'd argue was more of a bug
fix than an improvement). In fact, IIRC it took at least 2 major
versions to get min/max fixed, and that was a case where it was very
clear-cut what had to be done.
--
Jim Nasby jim@nasby.net
EnterpriseDB http://enterprisedb.com 512.569.9461 (cell)
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: jim@nasby.net, markir@paradise.net.nz, hjs@rmax.nl
Subject: Re: FW: Simple join optimized badly?
In-Reply-To: <20061012135248.GS28647@nasby.net>
* 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