Another day, another timing out query rewritten to force a more stable query plan.
While I know that the planner almost always chooses a good plan, I tend to think it is trying too hard. While 99% of the queries might be 10% faster, 1% might be timing out which makes my users cross and my life difficult. I'd much rather have systems that are less efficient overall, but stable with a very low rate of timeouts. I was wondering if the planner should be much more pessimistic, trusting in Murphy's Law and assuming the worst case is the likely case? Would this give me a much more consistent system? Would it consistently grind to a halt doing full table scans? Do we actually know the worst cases, and would it be a relatively easy task to update the planner so we can optionally enable this behavior per transaction or across a system? Boolean choice between pessimistic or optimistic, or is pessimism a dial? -- Stuart Bishop <stu...@stuartbishop.net> http://www.stuartbishop.net/ -- Sent via pgsql-performance mailing list (pgsql-performance@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-performance
