Re: Bunch o' dead code in GEQO
От
scott.marlowe
Тема
Re: Bunch o' dead code in GEQO
Дата
Msg-id
Pine.LNX.4.33.0401220816290.24807-100000@css120.ihs.com
Ответ на
Bunch o' dead code in GEQO (Tom Lane)
Список
Дерево обсуждения
Bunch o' dead code in GEQO Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Re: Bunch o' dead code in GEQO "scott.marlowe" <scott.marlowe@ihs.com>
Re: Bunch o' dead code in GEQO Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Re: Bunch o' dead code in GEQO Neil Conway <neilc@samurai.com>
Re: Bunch o' dead code in GEQO Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Re: Bunch o' dead code in GEQO Neil Conway <neilc@samurai.com>
Re: Bunch o' dead code in GEQO Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Re: Bunch o' dead code in GEQO "scott.marlowe" <scott.marlowe@ihs.com>
Re: Bunch o' dead code in GEQO Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
On Wed, 21 Jan 2004, Tom Lane wrote: > The GEQO planner module contains six different recombination algorithms, > only one of which is actually used --- the others are ifdef'd out, and > have been ever since we got the code. Does anyone see a reason not to > prune the deadwood? considering the recent discussion about REALLY slow query planning by the GEQO module, it might be worth testing each one to see which works best before lopping them off. But I don't do anything that needs GEQO, so for me, it doesn't really matter.
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления