Thomas Lockhart wrote:
>
<snip>
> If that were exposed, then folks could have additional control over the
> optimizer no matter what syntax they prefer to use. And in fact could
> alter the behavior without having to completely rewrite their query.
>
> One could also think about a threshold mechanism as you mention above,
> but istm that allowing explicit control over reordering (fundamentally
> different than, say, control over whether particular kinds of scans are
> used) is the best first step. Not solely continuing to hide that control
> behind heuristics involving query style and numbers of tables.
A la Oracle... here we come....
:-/
If we go down this track, although it would be beneficial in the short
term, is it the best long term approach?
I'm of a belief that *eventually* we really can take enough of the
variables into consideration for planning the best query every time. I
didn't say it was gunna be soon, nor easy though.
+ Justin
> - Thomas
>
> ---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
> TIP 5: Have you checked our extensive FAQ?
>
> http://www.postgresql.org/users-lounge/docs/faq.html
--
"My grandfather once told me that there are two kinds of people: those
who work and those who take the credit. He told me to try to be in the
first group; there was less competition there." - Indira Gandhi
