Re: "Constraint exclusion" is not general enough - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From stark
Subject Re: "Constraint exclusion" is not general enough
Date
Msg-id 87ac6gzykc.fsf@enterprisedb.com
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: "Constraint exclusion" is not general enough  (Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>)
List pgsql-hackers
Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> writes:

> "Jim C. Nasby" <jnasby@pervasive.com> writes:
>
>> How many cycles are we talking about here? Is it even worth the GUC?
>
> I think so.  On simple queries the optimization will *never* fire,
> and there's no point in doing the search.  People who are running
> complex queries will want to turn it on, but the mysql-equivalent
> crew will just find it a waste of cycles.

The other class of people who will find this kind of thing useful are those
using automatically generated queries. Frequently you end up with redundant
clauses or "unreachable" clauses that you hope the database will be able to
see through.

Having to enable that intelligence with a GUC is fine though since those users
could just enable it even if they aren't using partitioning. That said I
expect that eventually any option we add whose only purpose is it to enable
some intelligence in the optimizer will become standard.

--  Gregory Stark EnterpriseDB          http://www.enterprisedb.com



pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Tom Lane
Date:
Subject: Re: CSStorm occurred again by postgreSQL8.2
Next
From: "Pavel Stehule"
Date:
Subject: Re: proposal for 8.3: Simultaneous assignment for PL/pgSQL