Tomas Vondra <t...@fuzzy.cz> writes: > I can't reproduce any of the issues anymore - I've tested both 9.2 and > 9.3 branches (both containing the already commited fixes). And not only > that the issues seem to be gone, but I'm actually getting significantly > better performance.
Cool. I noticed that it seemed faster too, but hadn't tried to quantify that. > I've also tested both branches (9.2 and 9.3) with the provided patch, > and I can't reproduce any of the errors, but the performance seems to be > equal to the old code. So it seems that the performance boost is due to > the changes to the penalty function. Nice! Yeah, the old penalty function was pretty badly broken with any non-C sort order. >> your report that the behavior is unstable, because I get the same result >> each time if I start from an empty (truncated) table, with or without >> the patch. You may be seeing some further bug(s). Could you test this >> fix against your own test cases? > This is what I meant by unstability: > .... > Notice the numbers change all the time. [ scratches head... ] In HEAD, that's not so surprising because of commit ba1cc6501, which added some randomness to choices about which GiST page to insert new entries to (which could then affect whether the union-calculation bugs got exercised). If you saw that in older branches, though, it might merit some further investigation. regards, tom lane -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers