Tom Lane wrote: > "Kevin Grittner" <kevin.gritt...@wicourts.gov> writes: >> I guess the question is whether there is anyone who has had a contrary >> experience. (There must have been some benchmarks to justify adding >> geqo at some point?) > > The CVS history shows that geqo was integrated on 1997-02-19, which > I think means that it must have been developed against Postgres95
> So while I don't doubt that geqo was absolutely essential when it was > written, it's fair to question whether it still provides a real win. > And we could definitely stand to take another look at the default > thresholds. Well there is a TODO item about implementing an alternative to GEQO (which is being treated more and more as the underdog of the project): http://archives.postgresql.org/message-id/15658.1241278636%40sss.pgh.pa.us Would people be interested in someone working on that item? Cheers, Jan -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
