Re: [HACKERS] Idea for reducing planning time

[Tom Lane]

Alfred Perlstein <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> If you're saying that you're OK with the work Vadim has done please
> let him know, I'm assuming he hasn't committed out of respect for your
> still standing objection.

Well, I'm still against committing it now, but I only have one core
vote, and I seem to be losing 3:1.  I know when to concede ;-)

> As far as the work you're proposing, how much of a gain is it over
> the current code?  2x? 3x? 20x? :)  There's a difference between a
> slight performance increase and something too good to pass up.

Hard to tell without doing the work.  But we already know that extra
paths inside the planner pose a combinatorial penalty --- think
exponential behavior, not linear speedups...

                        regards, tom lane