On Wed, Dec 3, 2014 at 11:47 PM, Tom Lane <t...@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
> Atri Sharma <atri.j...@gmail.com> writes: > > On Wed, Dec 3, 2014 at 11:38 PM, Tom Lane <t...@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote: > >> I think the right approach for now is to emulate the GEQO precedent as > >> closely as possible. Build all the single-relation Paths the same as > >> now, then do a join search over all the relations, then (if we've > noticed > >> that some joins are potentially removable) do another join search over > >> just the nonremovable relations. > > > How about using geqo more liberally when replanning (decrease the number > of > > relations in join before geqo is hit?) > > This is going to be quite difficult enough without overcomplicating it. > Or as a wise man once said, "premature optimization is the root of all > evil". Get it working in the basic way and then see if improvement is > necessary at all. > > Sure, I can take a crack at it since I am working on a patch that does require this alternative path approach. Let me try something and report my experimental results.
