Ok, I agree that "2147483647" is not a reasonable setting. But what's the definition of "reasonable"? I just want to study the impact of the setting so I test the big number first.
Having the setting: cpu_index_tuple_cost = 10 I still get failures of "create_index", "inherit", "join", "stats". When you give users the flexibility of configurations, you cannot say all the values mismatching with your expectations are not allowed. In fact the system allowed such settings. T On Thu, Nov 8, 2012 at 6:10 PM, Bruce Momjian <br...@momjian.us> wrote: > On Thu, Nov 8, 2012 at 05:37:22PM -0800, Tianyin Xu wrote: > > Thanks, Craig, > > > > Yes, I know "context diff". What I don't know is whether + or - some > rows is a > > big problem, let's say correctness problem. I didn't write the test > cases so I > > don't know what these test cases are exactly doing. > > If you tell me the failure of these test cases are severe and not > acceptable, > > I'm fine with it. It means these configurations are not allowed. > > > > For this particular case, I figured out that it's because of the > following > > settings, > > > > cpu_index_tuple_cost = 2147483647 > > > > which assigned a big number to the cpu_index_tuple_cost, affecting the > query > > planner. > > > > But to me, the configuration settings should not affect the correctness, > right? > > Because whatever optimizations you do, the results should be the same > (what > > matters is the performance). And that's why I need testing before > adjusting > > these values. > > We can't test the optimizer is reasonable if you change settings in this > way, so no, I am not surprised it failed. > > -- > Bruce Momjian <br...@momjian.us> http://momjian.us > EnterpriseDB http://enterprisedb.com > > + It's impossible for everything to be true. + > -- Tianyin XU, http://cseweb.ucsd.edu/~tixu/
