Re: Function execution costs 'n all that

Поиск
Список
Период
Сортировка
От Neil Conway
Тема Re: Function execution costs 'n all that
Дата
Msg-id 1168893332.6174.127.camel@localhost.localdomain
обсуждение исходный текст
Ответ на Re: Function execution costs 'n all that  (Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>)
Ответы Re: Function execution costs 'n all that  (Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>)
Re: Function execution costs 'n all that  (Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>)
Список pgsql-hackers
On Mon, 2007-01-15 at 15:05 -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
> maybe we should just do the constant for starters and see how many
> people really want to write C-code estimators ...

+1

BTW, your proposal would still pushdown all qualifiers, right?
Hellerstein's xfunc work discusses situations in which it makes sense to
pullup expensive qualifiers above joins, for example, in order to reduce
the number of tuples the qualifier is applied to. Unfortunately, this
would probably increase the optimizer's search space by a fairly
significant degree, so it might need to be controlled by a GUC variable,
or only applied when the estimated cost of applying a qualifier is
particularly large relative to the total estimated cost of the plan.

-Neil




В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления:

Предыдущее
От: Tom Lane
Дата:
Сообщение: Re: Function execution costs 'n all that
Следующее
От: Peter Eisentraut
Дата:
Сообщение: Re: xml type and encodings