On Mon, Nov 8, 2010 at 3:05 PM, Tom Lane <t...@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote: > Robert Haas <robertmh...@gmail.com> writes: >> On Mon, Nov 8, 2010 at 1:19 PM, Tom Lane <t...@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote: >>> But this all looks like a pretty substantial amount of work, and >>> given the low level of user demand for improving the performance of >>> set operations, it seems to belong fairly far down the to-do list. >>> So I'm not going to tackle it now. Barring objection, I'll clean up >>> yesterday's patch a bit more and commit it. > >> I agree. If we had infinite resources it would be nice to tackle >> this, but I think we have bigger fish to fry. In particular, I wonder >> if you've thought any more about the generalized inner-indexscan >> machinery, or taken a look at any of the issues around KNNGIST. I'd >> like to see our limited supply of planner-fu invested in those areas, >> or perhaps in making inner join removal work. > > The two top things on my to-do list for 9.1 are the generalized > inner-indexscan stuff and automatic replans for parameterized queries. > I had been hoping to finish one or the other before the next commitfest, > though time is draining away rapidly.
Cool beans. > I'll try to look at KNNGIST during the fest. Thanks. I have posted on it a few times; you may or may not find it helpful to review those before diving in yourself... -- Robert Haas EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
