On Fri, Oct 13, 2006 at 12:30:24PM -0500, Jim C. Nasby wrote: > On Fri, Oct 13, 2006 at 10:23:31AM -0700, Jeff Davis wrote: > > Right. And I think the sane ideas are along the lines of estimate > > & cost corrections (like Tom is saying). > > Let me ask this... how long do you (and others) want to wait for > those?
That's a good question, but see below. > It's great that the planner is continually improving, but it > also appears that there's still a long road ahead. Having a > dune-buggy to get to your destination ahead of the road might not be > a bad idea... :) What evidence do you have that adding per-query hints would take less time and be less work, even in the short term, than the current strategy of continuously improving the planner and optimizer? Cheers, D -- David Fetter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> http://fetter.org/ phone: +1 415 235 3778 AIM: dfetter666 Skype: davidfetter Remember to vote! ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- TIP 2: Don't 'kill -9' the postmaster
