On Fri, Nov 16, 2018 at 10:11 AM Tom Lane wrote:
> I don't think so, because right now they (a) can't get either
> optimization, and/or (b) don't know what either one does or
> how to invoke it.
Sure. But as soon as they know that, they're just going to try to
figure out how to get the thing the
Robert Haas writes:
> On Thu, Nov 15, 2018 at 5:50 PM Tom Lane wrote:
>> There have been occasional discussions of inventing a master "planner
>> effort" control knob, with values say 1..10 [1], and allowing that one
>> thing to control all these decisions, as well as other things we might do
>>
Simon Riggs writes:
> On Fri, 16 Nov 2018 at 14:00, James Coleman wrote:
>>> Yeah, that's sort of my reaction as well. I also feel like this is a
>>> mighty special case to expose as a separate GUC. There are other magic
>>> effort-limiting constants elsewhere in the planner --- we just added a
>> I'd be happy to yank this in favor of my holistic solution to this
>> problem I posted recently on the mailing list [1].
>
> [1]
> https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/flat/CAAaqYe8yKSvzbyu8w-dThRs9aTFMwrFxn_BkTYeXgjqe3CbNjg%40mail.gmail.com
>
> Not precisely sure what you mean - are you sayin
On Thu, Nov 15, 2018 at 5:50 PM Tom Lane wrote:
> There have been occasional discussions of inventing a master "planner
> effort" control knob, with values say 1..10 [1], and allowing that one
> thing to control all these decisions, as well as other things we might do
> in the future that would ca
On Fri, 16 Nov 2018 at 14:00, James Coleman wrote:
> > > My main comment is that the description of the purpose of the GUC
> doesn't
> > > help me understand when or why I might want to alter it from the
> default
> > > value. If nobody is going to alter it, because nobody understands it,
> it
>
> > My main comment is that the description of the purpose of the GUC doesn't
> > help me understand when or why I might want to alter it from the default
> > value. If nobody is going to alter it, because nobody understands it, it
> > might as well remain a compile-time constant.
>
> Yeah, that's
Paul Ramsey writes:
> On Fri, Nov 9, 2018 at 1:32 PM James Coleman wrote:
>> Create new guc array_optimization_size_limit and use it to replace
>> MAX_SAOP_ARRAY_SIZE in predtest.c.
> My main comment is that the description of the purpose of the GUC doesn't
> help me understand when or why I mig
On Fri, Nov 9, 2018 at 1:32 PM James Coleman wrote:
> Summary:
> Create new guc array_optimization_size_limit and use it to replace
> MAX_SAOP_ARRAY_SIZE in predtest.c.
>
> Status:
> The attached patch applies cleanly to master, builds without error,
> and passes tests locally.
>
Confirmed that
Note: the original email from David went to my spam folder, and it also
didn't show up on the archives (I assume caught by a spam filter there
also?)
Thanks for taking this on!
>
> As far as you can tell, is the default correct at 100?
>
I'm not sure what a good way of measuring it would be (that
Summary:
Create new guc array_optimization_size_limit and use it to replace
MAX_SAOP_ARRAY_SIZE in predtest.c.
Among other things this allows tuning when `col IN (1,2,3)` style
expressions can be matched against partial indexes.
It also fixes the comment:
"XXX is it worth exposing this as a GUC k
11 matches
Mail list logo
