On Fri, Jul 27, 2018 at 02:19:27PM +0530, Ashutosh Bapat wrote:
> [ removal of latest arguments ]
> +1, if we could do that.
The patch seems to have stuck a bit, so I am marking it as returned with
feedback because of no activity.
--
Michael
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
On Thu, Jul 26, 2018 at 10:30 PM, Dean Rasheed wrote:
> On 26 July 2018 at 07:12, Ashutosh Bapat
> wrote:
>> In the patch clauselist_selectivity() gets called repeatedly for every
>> new qual added to the clause list. Instead, if we try to combine the
>> cost/row estimation with
On 26 July 2018 at 07:12, Ashutosh Bapat
wrote:
> In the patch clauselist_selectivity() gets called repeatedly for every
> new qual added to the clause list. Instead, if we try to combine the
> cost/row estimation with order_qual_clauses() or
> clauselist_selectivity(), we might be able to what
On Mon, Jan 29, 2018 at 10:42 AM, Yuto Hayamizu wrote:
> On Fri, Jan 19, 2018 at 5:07 PM, Yuto Hayamizu wrote:
>> My idea of improving this patch is that give a threshold N_limit,
>> and for q_1 ... q_N_limit, do the same weighted cost estimation in the
>> current version of this patch.
>> For
On Fri, Jan 19, 2018 at 5:07 PM, Yuto Hayamizu wrote:
> My idea of improving this patch is that give a threshold N_limit,
> and for q_1 ... q_N_limit, do the same weighted cost estimation in the
> current version of this patch.
> For q_{N_limit+1} , stop calling
On Thu, Nov 9, 2017 at 12:33 PM, Ashutosh Bapat
wrote:
> different set, within each set the order is same. FWIW, we can order
> all clauses in largest set once and use that order every time. Albeit
> we will have to remember the order somewhere OR make the
On Wed, Nov 8, 2017 at 6:48 AM, Tom Lane wrote:
> Because (1) up to now there's been no need to consider the qual ordering
> till later, and (2) re-doing that sort for each path seemed unduly
> expensive. If we're to try to estimate whether later quals will be
> reached, then
On Sun, Jan 7, 2018 at 8:25 AM, Stephen Frost wrote:
>
> Greetings,
>
> * Michael Paquier (michael.paqu...@gmail.com) wrote:
> > On Thu, Nov 9, 2017 at 12:33 PM, Ashutosh Bapat
> > wrote:
> > > Looking at order_qual_clauses(), we can say that
Greetings,
* Michael Paquier (michael.paqu...@gmail.com) wrote:
> On Thu, Nov 9, 2017 at 12:33 PM, Ashutosh Bapat
> wrote:
> > Looking at order_qual_clauses(), we can say that a set of quals q1
> > qn are ordered the same irrespective of the set of clauses
On Thu, Nov 9, 2017 at 12:33 PM, Ashutosh Bapat
wrote:
> Looking at order_qual_clauses(), we can say that a set of quals q1
> qn are ordered the same irrespective of the set of clauses they
> are subset of. E.g. if {q1 .. qn} is subset of Q (ordered as Qo)
10 matches
Mail list logo