On Wed, Dec 03, 2014 at 02:08:27PM -0500, Tom Lane wrote: > Heikki Linnakangas <hlinnakan...@vmware.com> writes: > > Do you need to plan for every combination, where some joins are removed > > and some are not? > > I would vote for just having two plans and one switch node. To exploit > any finer grain, we'd have to have infrastructure that would let us figure > out *which* constraints pending triggers might indicate transient > invalidity of, and that doesn't seem likely to be worth the trouble. > > > I hope the same mechanism could be used to prepare a plan for a query > > with parameters, where the parameters might or might not allow a partial > > index to be used. We have some smarts nowadays to use custom plans, but > > this could be better. > > Interesting thought, but that would be a totally different switch > condition ... > > regards, tom lane >
Or between a node with a low rows count and a high rows count for those pesky mis-estimation queries. Regards, Ken -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
