Date: Thu, 12 Oct 2006 11:37:47 -0500
From: "Jim C. Nasby" <jim@nasby.net>
To: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Cc: Mark Kirkwood <markir@paradise.net.nz>, "H.J. Sanders" <hjs@rmax.nl>,
	pgsql-performance@postgresql.org
Subject: Re: FW: Simple join optimized badly?
Message-ID: <20061012163747.GG28647@nasby.net>
References: <GMEAJIDMNDKCIHMMHDFLEEOHEGAA.hjs@rmax.nl>
	<452E11FB.7070704@paradise.net.nz>
	<20061012135248.GS28647@nasby.net> <10362.1160664260@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <10362.1160664260@sss.pgh.pa.us>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.11

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)