Received: from localhost (mx1.hub.org [200.46.208.251]) by postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 77B699FA1DA for ; Wed, 18 Oct 2006 14:01:22 -0300 (ADT) Received: from postgresql.org ([200.46.204.71]) by localhost (mx1.hub.org [200.46.208.251]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 54400-08 for ; Wed, 18 Oct 2006 14:01:17 -0300 (ADT) X-Greylist: from auto-whitelisted by SQLgrey- Received: from n007.sc1.cp.net (smtpout1473.sc1.he.tucows.com [64.97.157.173]) by postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 659719FA18A for ; Wed, 18 Oct 2006 14:01:15 -0300 (ADT) Received: from [192.168.0.12] (68.34.49.125) by n007.sc1.cp.net (7.2.069.1) (authenticated as rob@treat.com) id 45364F97000042DF; Wed, 18 Oct 2006 17:00:44 +0000 From: Robert Treat To: Tom Lane Subject: Re: Hints proposal Date: Wed, 18 Oct 2006 12:59:20 -0400 User-Agent: KMail/1.9.1 Cc: pgsql-performance@postgresql.org, "Bucky Jordan" , "Joshua Marsh" References: <78ED28FACE63744386D68D8A9D1CF5D4209C9A@MAIL.corp.lumeta.com> <200610172240.20142.xzilla@users.sourceforge.net> <14539.1161140129@sss.pgh.pa.us> In-Reply-To: <14539.1161140129@sss.pgh.pa.us> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline Message-Id: <200610181259.21389.xzilla@users.sourceforge.net> X-Virus-Scanned: Maia Mailguard 1.0.1 X-Spam-Status: No, hits=1.281 tagged_above=0 required=5 tests=AWL, FORGED_RCVD_HELO, RCVD_IN_BL_SPAMCOP_NET X-Spam-Level: * X-Archive-Number: 200610/361 X-Sequence-Number: 21490 On Tuesday 17 October 2006 22:55, Tom Lane wrote: > Robert Treat writes: > > When it happens it tends to look something like this: > > http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-performance/2006-01/msg00154.php > > > > Funny that for all the people who claim that improving the planner should > > be the primary goal that no one ever took interest in the above case. > > Well, you didn't provide sufficient data for anyone else to reproduce > the problem ... > Geez Tom, cut me some slack... no one even bothered to respond that that post with a "hey we can't tell cause we need more information"... not that it matters because here is where I reposted the problem with more information http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-performance/2006-01/msg00248.php where you'll note that Josh agreed with my thinking that there was an issue with the planner and he specifically asked for comments from you. And here is where I reposted the problem to -bugs http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-bugs/2006-01/msg00134.php where I make note of discussing this with several other people, got Bruce to hazard a guess which was debunked, and where I noted to Bruce about 10 days later that there had been no further action and no one had asked for the _sample database_ I was able to put together. -- Robert Treat Build A Brighter LAMP :: Linux Apache {middleware} PostgreSQL