On 10/29/13 11:45 AM, Tom Lane wrote:
Jim Nasby <jnasby@xxxxxxxxx> writes:
I'm also wondering if it's time to raise those limits.
Yeah, possibly. The current default values were set on machines much
smaller/slower than most current hardware.
I think also that the collapse limits were invented mainly to keep people
out of GEQO's clutches, but we've made some significant fixes in GEQO
since then. Maybe the real answer is to make the default collapse limits
much higher, and lower geqo_threshold to whatever we think the threshold
of pain is for applying the regular planner.
In my test case geqo does seem to do a good job. I'll see if I can get some data on how number of relations affects planning time... I don't get much of a warm fuzzy about lowering geqo...
--
Jim Nasby, Lead Data Architect (512) 569-9461
--
Sent via pgsql-performance mailing list (pgsql-performance@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-performance
