From: Jim C. Nasby <jim@nasby.net>
To: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Cc: 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 11:37:47 -0500
Message-ID: <20061012163747.GG28647@nasby.net> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <10362.1160664260@sss.pgh.pa.us>
References: <GMEAJIDMNDKCIHMMHDFLEEOHEGAA.hjs@rmax.nl>
<452E11FB.7070704@paradise.net.nz>
<20061012135248.GS28647@nasby.net>
<10362.1160664260@sss.pgh.pa.us>
On Thu, Oct 12, 2006 at 10:44:20AM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> "Jim C. Nasby" <jim@nasby.net> writes:
> > 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).
>
> Hmph. Apparently I've wasted most of the last five years.
Ok, now that I've actually looked at the release notes, I take that back
and apologize. But while there's a lot of improvements that have been
made, there's still some seriously tough problems that have been talked
about for a long time and there's still no "light at the end of the
tunnel", like how to handle multi-column statistics.
--
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, tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us, markir@paradise.net.nz, hjs@rmax.nl
Subject: Re: FW: Simple join optimized badly?
In-Reply-To: <20061012163747.GG28647@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