On Thu, Jan 12, 2006 at 09:48:41AM +0000, Simon Riggs wrote:
> On Wed, 2006-01-11 at 22:23 -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
> > =?iso-8859-1?Q?Jean-Philippe_C=F4t=E9?= <jean-philippe.cote@crt.umontreal.ca> writes:
> > > Thanks a lot for this info, I was indeed exceeding the genetic
> > > optimizer's threshold. Now that it is turned off, I get
> > > a very stable response time of 435ms (more or less 5ms) for
> > > the same query. It is about three times slower than the best
> > > I got with the genetic optimizer on, but the overall average
> > > is much lower.
> >
> > Hmm. It would be interesting to use EXPLAIN ANALYZE to confirm that the
> > plan found this way is the same as the best plan found by GEQO, and
> > the extra couple hundred msec is the price you pay for the exhaustive
> > plan search. If GEQO is managing to find a plan better than the regular
> > planner then we need to look into why ...
>
> It seems worth noting in the EXPLAIN whether GEQO has been used to find
> the plan, possibly along with other factors influencing the plan such as
> enable_* settings.
>
Is it the plan that is different in the fastest case with GEQO or is it
the time needed to plan that is causing the GEQO to beat the exhaustive
search?
Ken
