Horton

Re: [HACKERS] Slow count(*) again...

Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us>

View thread
From: Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us>
To: Mladen Gogala <mladen.gogala@vmsinfo.com>
Cc: Greg Smith <greg@2ndquadrant.com>, Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com>, Andrew Dunstan <andrew@dunslane.net>, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>, "david@lang.hm" <david@lang.hm>, Craig Ringer <craig@postnewspapers.com.au>, Vitalii Tymchyshyn <tivv00@gmail.com>, "pgsql-performance@postgresql.org" <pgsql-performance@postgresql.org>
Date: 2011-02-03T16:57:30Z
Lists: pgsql-hackers, pgsql-performance 
Mladen Gogala wrote:
> Hints are not even that complicated to program. The SQL parser should 
> compile the list of hints into a table and optimizer should check 
> whether any of the applicable access methods exist in the table. If it 
> does - use it. If not, ignore it. This looks to me like a philosophical 
> issue, not a programming issue. Basically, the current Postgres 
> philosophy can be described like this: if the database was a gas stove, 
> it would occasionally catch fire. However, bundling a fire extinguisher 
> with the stove is somehow seen as bad. When the stove catches fire, 
> users is expected to report the issue and wait for a better stove to be 
> developed. It is a very rough analogy, but rather accurate one, too.

That might be true.

-- 
  Bruce Momjian  <bruce@momjian.us>        http://momjian.us
  EnterpriseDB                             http://enterprisedb.com

  + It's impossible for everything to be true. +