Re: [PERFORM] Planner doesn't look at LIMIT?

From: Simon Riggs
Subject: Re: [PERFORM] Planner doesn't look at LIMIT?
Date: ,
Msg-id: 1122053518.21502.180.camel@localhost.localdomain
(view: Whole thread, Raw)
In response to: Re: [PERFORM] Planner doesn't look at LIMIT?  (Tom Lane)
Responses: Re: [PERFORM] Planner doesn't look at LIMIT?  (Tom Lane)
List: pgsql-hackers

Tree view

Re: [PERFORM] Planner doesn't look at LIMIT?  (Tom Lane, )
 Re: [PERFORM] Planner doesn't look at LIMIT?  (Simon Riggs, )
  Re: [PERFORM] Planner doesn't look at LIMIT?  (Tom Lane, )
   Re: [PERFORM] Planner doesn't look at LIMIT?  (Sam Mason, )
 Re: [PERFORM] Planner doesn't look at LIMIT?  (Dawid Kuroczko, )
 Re: [PERFORM] Planner doesn't look at LIMIT?  (Tom Lane, )
 Re: [PERFORM] Planner doesn't look at LIMIT?  (Ian Westmacott, )

On Fri, 2005-07-22 at 12:20 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> I think that this refutes the original scheme of using the same fuzz
> factor for both startup and total cost comparisons, and therefore
> propose the attached patch.
>
> Comments?

Looks good. I think it explains a few other wierd perf reports also.

Best Regards, Simon Riggs



pgsql-hackers by date:

From: Josh Berkus
Date:
Subject: Re: Checkpoint cost, looks like it is WAL/CRC
From: Tom Lane
Date:
Subject: Re: Autovacuum loose ends