The problem for us was to move forward to a decisive victory, or our cause was lost.
—Ulysses S. Grant (1822–1885)
Personal Memoirs, Chapter XXXVII
EVEN IF THERE IS OFTEN STILL ROOM FOR IMPROVEMENT WHEN ALL QUERIES HAVE BEEN “TUNED TO death,” as you saw in Chapter 1 (and as I will further demonstrate in the next few chapters), when a big, bad query flagrantly kills performance, improving that query has a tremendous psychological effect. If you want to be viewed with awe, it is usually better to improve a killer query than to humbly ensure that the system will be able to scale up in the next few months.
Although optimizers are supposed to turn a poorly expressed statement into efficient data handling, sometimes things go wrong, even when the indexing is sane and all the relevant information is available to the optimizer. You know how it is: even if the optimizer does a good job 99 times out of 100, it is the botched attempt that everyone will notice. Assuming once again that proper statistics are available to the optimizer, failure to perform well usually results from one of the following:
An optimizer bug (it happens!)
A query that is so complex that the optimizer tried, in the limited time it grants itself, only a small number of rewrites compared to the large number of possible combinations, and failed to find the best path in the process
I’d like to point out that optimizer bugs are most commonly encountered in situations of almost inextricable complexity, ...