Date: Fri, 13 Oct 2006 10:43:57 -0700
From: David Fetter <david@fetter.org>
To: "Jim C. Nasby" <jim@nasby.net>
Cc: Jeff Davis <pgsql@j-davis.com>, Bucky Jordan <bjordan@lumeta.com>,
	Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@commandprompt.com>, josh@agliodbs.com,
	pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org
Subject: Re: [PERFORM] Hints proposal
Message-ID: <20061013174357.GO15009@fetter.org>
References: <78ED28FACE63744386D68D8A9D1CF5D4209CBD@MAIL.corp.lumeta.com>
	<1160760211.31966.231.camel@dogma.v10.wvs>
	<20061013173024.GE28647@nasby.net>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20061013173024.GE28647@nasby.net>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.2.1i

On Fri, Oct 13, 2006 at 12:30:24PM -0500, Jim C. Nasby wrote:
> On Fri, Oct 13, 2006 at 10:23:31AM -0700, Jeff Davis wrote:
> > Right. And I think the sane ideas are along the lines of estimate
> > & cost corrections (like Tom is saying).
> 
> Let me ask this... how long do you (and others) want to wait for
> those?

That's a good question, but see below.

> It's great that the planner is continually improving, but it
> also appears that there's still a long road ahead. Having a
> dune-buggy to get to your destination ahead of the road might not be
> a bad idea... :)

What evidence do you have that adding per-query hints would take less
time and be less work, even in the short term, than the current
strategy of continuously improving the planner and optimizer?

Cheers,
D
-- 
David Fetter <david@fetter.org> http://fetter.org/
phone: +1 415 235 3778        AIM: dfetter666
                              Skype: davidfetter

Remember to vote!