Is this a TODO item?
---
Adriano Lange wrote:
Hi
Tobias Zahn escreveu:
Hello Adriano,
thank you very much for posting your patch. I think it will help to make
further work easier, too. I hope you don't mind when I
Bruce Momjian br...@momjian.us writes:
Is this a TODO item?
We already have a TODO item about replacing GEQO.
However, linking to this thread might be more useful than the 404 that's
there now...
regards, tom lane
--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list
Tom Lane wrote:
Bruce Momjian br...@momjian.us writes:
Is this a TODO item?
We already have a TODO item about replacing GEQO.
However, linking to this thread might be more useful than the 404 that's
there now...
Removed and added.
--
Bruce Momjian br...@momjian.us
Hello Adriano,
thank you very much for posting your patch. I think it will help to make
further work easier, too. I hope you don't mind when I ask you some
questions.
When you said that this new approach is worse or equal than GEQO, did
you refer to performance or to the quality of results?
Why
Hi
Tobias Zahn escreveu:
Hello Adriano,
thank you very much for posting your patch. I think it will help to make
further work easier, too. I hope you don't mind when I ask you some
questions.
When you said that this new approach is worse or equal than GEQO, did
you refer to performance or to
Robert Haas escreveu:
On Wed, May 13, 2009 at 4:14 PM, Tobias Zahn tobias-z...@arcor.de wrote:
Hello,
thank you for posting the paper, it was quite interesting to read. I
think it would be a good idea to give the two-phase optimization a try.
As far as I know and understand the current (geqo)
Adriano Lange escreveu:
I implemented the 2PO algorithm last month but I didn't have much time
to do an extensive test and to comment all code. The code was posted in
this list in a previous thread. In that occasion, I was interested in a
kind of cache structure to avoid the constructing a
Hello,
thank you for posting the paper, it was quite interesting to read. I
think it would be a good idea to give the two-phase optimization a try.
As far as I know and understand the current (geqo) optimizer source,
many important parts are already there. For example, we can calculate
the costs
On Wed, May 13, 2009 at 4:14 PM, Tobias Zahn tobias-z...@arcor.de wrote:
Hello,
thank you for posting the paper, it was quite interesting to read. I
think it would be a good idea to give the two-phase optimization a try.
As far as I know and understand the current (geqo) optimizer source,
On Sat, May 2, 2009 at 11:37 AM, Tom Lane t...@sss.pgh.pa.us wrote:
Tobias Zahn tobias-z...@arcor.de writes:
I didn't not get any response to my initial message below. Now I am
wondering if nobody is into the optimizer or if my question was just too
stupid. Could you please give me some clues?
Hello again,
I didn't not get any response to my initial message below. Now I am
wondering if nobody is into the optimizer or if my question was just too
stupid. Could you please give me some clues? Your help would really be
appreciated.
Regards,
Tobias
Hello,
I was digging through the
Tobias Zahn tobias-z...@arcor.de writes:
I didn't not get any response to my initial message below. Now I am
wondering if nobody is into the optimizer or if my question was just too
stupid. Could you please give me some clues? Your help would really be
appreciated.
Well, nobody's into GEQO
Hi,
Le 2 mai 09 à 17:37, Tom Lane a écrit :
My knowledge of AI search algorithms is about 20 years obsolete, but
last I heard simulated annealing had overtaken genetic algorithms for
many purposes. It might be interesting to try a rewrite based on SA;
or maybe there's something better out
Hello,
I was digging through the optimizer code and have a question regarding
the edge recombination crossover (ERX) of the GEQO. It might be
completely stupid and therefore I apologize for this in advance.
As far as I understand it, the idea of the ERX is the minimization of
edge failures. When
14 matches
Mail list logo
