Re: FW: Simple join optimized badly?

From: Tom Lane
Subject: Re: FW: Simple join optimized badly?
Date: ,
Msg-id: 10362.1160664260@sss.pgh.pa.us
(view: Whole thread, Raw)
In response to: Re: FW: Simple join optimized badly?  ("Jim C. Nasby")
Responses: Re: FW: Simple join optimized badly?  ("Jim C. Nasby")
Re: FW: Simple join optimized badly?  (Scott Marlowe)
Re: FW: Simple join optimized badly?  (Mark Kirkwood)
List: pgsql-performance

Tree view

FW: Simple join optimized badly?  ("H.J. Sanders", )
 Re: FW: Simple join optimized badly?  (Mark Kirkwood, )
  Re: FW: Simple join optimized badly?  ("Jim C. Nasby", )
   Re: FW: Simple join optimized badly?  (Tom Lane, )
    Re: FW: Simple join optimized badly?  ("Jim C. Nasby", )
     Re: FW: Simple join optimized badly?  (Mark Kirkwood, )
    Re: FW: Simple join optimized badly?  (Scott Marlowe, )
    Re: FW: Simple join optimized badly?  (Mark Kirkwood, )

"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.

            regards, tom lane


pgsql-performance by date:

From: "Jim C. Nasby"
Date:
Subject: Re: Hints proposal
From: Josh Berkus
Date:
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] Hints proposal