Re: Simple join optimized badly?

From: Tom Lane
Subject: Re: Simple join optimized badly?
Date: ,
Msg-id: 17519.1160489688@sss.pgh.pa.us
(view: Whole thread, Raw)
In response to: Re: Simple join optimized badly?  ("Jim C. Nasby")
Responses: Re: Simple join optimized badly?  ("Jim C. Nasby")
List: pgsql-performance

Tree view

Simple join optimized badly?  ("Craig A. James", )
 Re: Simple join optimized badly?  (Tom Lane, )
  Re: Simple join optimized badly?  ("Denis Lussier", )
   Re: Simple join optimized badly?  (Jim Nasby, )
   Re: Simple join optimized badly?  (Josh Berkus, )
    Re: Simple join optimized badly?  ("Craig A. James", )
     Re: Simple join optimized badly?  (Mark Kirkwood, )
      Re: Simple join optimized badly?  ("Craig A. James", )
       Re: Simple join optimized badly?  (Mark Kirkwood, )
        Re: Simple join optimized badly?  (Tom Lane, )
         Re: Simple join optimized badly?  (Josh Berkus, )
          Re: Simple join optimized badly?  (Tom Lane, )
    Re: Simple join optimized badly?  (Tom Lane, )
    Re: Simple join optimized badly?  (Scott Marlowe, )
 Re: Simple join optimized badly?  (Bruce Momjian, )
  Re: Simple join optimized badly?  ("Craig A. James", )
 Re: Simple join optimized badly?  (Chris Browne, )
 Re: Simple join optimized badly?  (Chris Browne, )
  Re: Simple join optimized badly?  ("Jim C. Nasby", )
   Re: Simple join optimized badly?  (Tom Lane, )
   Re: Simple join optimized badly?  (Mark Kirkwood, )
    Re: Simple join optimized badly?  (Mark Kirkwood, )
 Re: Simple join optimized badly?  (Tobias Brox, )
  Re: Simple join optimized badly?  ("Jim C. Nasby", )
   Re: Simple join optimized badly?  ("Joshua D. Drake", )
    Re: Simple join optimized badly?  ("Jim C. Nasby", )
     Re: Simple join optimized badly?  ("Joshua D. Drake", )
   Re: Simple join optimized badly?  (Tom Lane, )
    Re: Simple join optimized badly?  ("Jim C. Nasby", )
     Re: Simple join optimized badly?  (Tom Lane, )
      Re: Simple join optimized badly?  ("Jim C. Nasby", )
       Re: Simple join optimized badly?  (Josh Berkus, )
        Re: Simple join optimized badly?  ("Jim C. Nasby", )
  Re: Simple join optimized badly?  (Bruno Wolff III, )
 Re: Simple join optimized badly?  (Brian Herlihy, )
  Re: Simple join optimized badly?  ("Craig A. James", )
   Re: Simple join optimized badly?  ("Joshua D. Drake", )
    Re: Simple join optimized badly?  ("Jim C. Nasby", )
     Re: Simple join optimized badly?  ("Steinar H. Gunderson", )
      Re: Simple join optimized badly?  ("Joshua D. Drake", )
     Re: Simple join optimized badly?  ("Joshua D. Drake", )
      Re: Simple join optimized badly?  (Brian Herlihy, )
       Re: Simple join optimized badly?  (Tom Lane, )
        Re: Simple join optimized badly?  (Brian Herlihy, )
        Re: Simple join optimized badly?  ("Bucky Jordan", )
         Re: Simple join optimized badly?  (Heikki Linnakangas, )
          Re: Simple join optimized badly?  (Bruce Momjian, )
         Collect stats during seqscan (was: Simple join optimized badly?)  ("Jim C. Nasby", )
        Re: Simple join optimized badly?  (Mark Lewis, )

"Jim C. Nasby" <> writes:
> I'd rather have the ugly solution sooner rather than the elegant one
> later (if ever).

The trouble with that is that we couldn't ever get rid of it, and we'd
be stuck with backward-compatibility concerns with the first (over
simplified) design.  It's important to get it right the first time,
at least for stuff that you know perfectly well is going to end up
embedded in application code.

            regards, tom lane


pgsql-performance by date:

From: "Jim C. Nasby"
Date:
Subject: Re: Simple join optimized badly?
From: Brendan Curran
Date:
Subject: Scrub one large table against another