On Fri, Oct 31, 2008 at 06:57:25PM -0400, Eric Schwarzenbach wrote:
>
> My problem with GEQO using a random number generator is that
> non-deterministic behavior is really hard to debug, and problems can go
> undiagnosed for ages. Frankly I would rather something fail all the
> time, than it work
On Fri, Oct 31, 2008 at 06:57:25PM -0400, Eric Schwarzenbach wrote:
>
> My problem with GEQO using a random number generator is that
> non-deterministic behavior is really hard to debug, and problems can go
> undiagnosed for ages. Frankly I would rather something fail all the
> time, than it work
Eric Schwarzenbach wrote:
> This is in a sense a followup to my post with subject "Wildly erratic
> query performance". The more I think about it the only thing that makes
> sense of my results is if the query planner really WAS choosing my join
> order truly randomly each time. I went digging into
My problem with GEQO using a random number generator is that
non-deterministic behavior is really hard to debug, and problems can go
undiagnosed for ages. Frankly I would rather something fail all the
time, than it work most of the time and fail just now and then. Never
getting a good plan for a q
This is in a sense a followup to my post with subject "Wildly erratic
query performance". The more I think about it the only thing that makes
sense of my results is if the query planner really WAS choosing my join
order truly randomly each time. I went digging into the manual and
Section 49.3.1. "G
My problem with GEQO using a random number generator is that
non-deterministic behavior is really hard to debug, and problems can go
undiagnosed for ages. Frankly I would rather something fail all the
time, than it work most of the time and fail just now and then. Never
getting a good plan for a q
Eric Schwarzenbach <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Now ordinarily I would interpret this use of the word "random" loosely, to
> mean "arbitrarily" or "using some non-meaningful selection criteria". But
> given what I am seeing, this leads me to consider that "random" is meant
> literally, and that it
This is in a sense a followup to my post with subject "Wildly erratic
query performance".
The more I think about it the only thing that makes sense of my results
is if the query planner really WAS choosing my join order truly randomly
each time. I went digging into the manual and Section 49.3.1.
"
