Received: from localhost (wm.hub.org [200.46.204.128]) by postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id E9BF09FB33F for ; Thu, 12 Oct 2006 19:07:47 -0300 (ADT) Received: from postgresql.org ([200.46.204.71]) by localhost (mx1.hub.org [200.46.204.128]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 48612-04 for ; Thu, 12 Oct 2006 22:07:36 +0000 (UTC) X-Greylist: from auto-whitelisted by SQLgrey- Received: from linda-5.paradise.net.nz (linda-5.paradise.net.nz [203.96.152.184]) by postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6FDAB9FB323 for ; Thu, 12 Oct 2006 19:07:36 -0300 (ADT) Received: from smtp-2.paradise.net.nz (tclsnelb1-src-1.paradise.net.nz [203.96.152.172]) by linda-5.paradise.net.nz (Paradise.net.nz) with ESMTP id <0J7100DA8MSMTJ@linda-5.paradise.net.nz> for pgsql-performance@postgresql.org; Fri, 13 Oct 2006 11:07:34 +1300 (NZDT) Received: from [192.168.1.11] (218-101-28-242.dsl.clear.net.nz [218.101.28.242]) by smtp-2.paradise.net.nz (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9E97DDF8FC0; Fri, 13 Oct 2006 11:07:33 +1300 (NZDT) Date: Fri, 13 Oct 2006 11:07:32 +1300 From: Mark Kirkwood Subject: Re: FW: Simple join optimized badly? In-reply-to: <10362.1160664260@sss.pgh.pa.us> To: Tom Lane Cc: "Jim C. Nasby" , "H.J. Sanders" , pgsql-performance@postgresql.org Message-id: <452EBCA4.4030607@paradise.net.nz> MIME-version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; format=flowed; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit User-Agent: Thunderbird 1.5.0.7 (X11/20061003) References: <452E11FB.7070704@paradise.net.nz> <20061012135248.GS28647@nasby.net> <10362.1160664260@sss.pgh.pa.us> X-Virus-Scanned: Maia Mailguard 1.0.1 X-Spam-Status: No, hits=0 tagged_above=0 required=5 tests= X-Spam-Level: X-Archive-Number: 200610/265 X-Sequence-Number: 21394 Tom Lane wrote: > "Jim C. Nasby" 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. > In my opinion your on-going well thought out planner improvements are *exactly* the approach we need to keep doing... Cheers Mark