Melese Tesfaye writes:
> [ test case ]
Argh. The problem query has a plan like this:
-> Merge Join (cost=1084.06..1354.58 rows=4 width=13)
Merge Cond: (table2_t.pnr_id = a.pnr_id)
-> stuff ...
-> Index Scan using table1_t_pnr_id_idx5 on table1_t a
(co
Hello
you should to run this query on real data - and if it works now, then
send EXPLAIN ANALYZE result, please
Pavel
2012/9/27 Melese Tesfaye :
> Thanks Pavel,
> Setting enable_hashagg to off didn't resolve the issue.
> Please find the explain as well as query results after "set
> enable_hashag
Thanks Pavel,
Setting enable_hashagg to off didn't resolve the issue.
Please find the explain as well as query results after "set
enable_hashagg=off;"
mtesfaye@[local](test_db)=# EXPLAIN SELECT DISTINCT(A.*)
test_db-# FROM table1_t A LEFT JOIN table2_v B
test_db-# ON A.pnr_id=B.pnr_id
test_db-# WH
Hello
this situation is possible, when optimizer use HashAgg where should not use it.
Please, try to disable HashAgg - set enable_hashagg to off;
please, send EXPLAIN result
Regards
Pavel Stehule
2012/9/26 :
> The following bug has been logged on the website:
>
> Bug reference: 7571
> L
Melese Tesfaye writes:
> I do have a self-contained test case which duplicates the problem. However,
> since there are data to be attached and there wasn't a way to attach in the
> bug reporting form, I wasn't sure how to proceed.
Just send it to the pgsql-bugs@postgresql.org mailing list. (If y
mtesf...@gmail.com writes:
> I had a problem with missing rows in a resultset when using WHERE .. IN
> after upgrading to 9.2.0.
We'll need a self-contained test case to investigate that. The query
alone is of no help without table definitions and sample data sufficient
to reproduce the misbehavi
The following bug has been logged on the website:
Bug reference: 7572
Logged by: Daniele Varrazzo
Email address: daniele.varra...@gmail.com
PostgreSQL version: 9.1.4
Operating system: Linux
Description:
Hello,
when a slave is promoted, the pgwriter keeps holding a lo
The following bug has been logged on the website:
Bug reference: 7571
Logged by: Radovan Jablonovsky
Email address: radovan.jablonov...@replicon.com
PostgreSQL version: 9.1.5
Operating system: CentOs 5.8 Linux 2.6.18-308.el5 x86_64
Description:
During checking our co
On Tue, Sep 25, 2012 at 1:18 PM, wrote:
> The following bug has been logged on the website:
>
> Bug reference: 7565
> Logged by: ashokkumar
> Email address: mcashokku...@gmail.com
> PostgreSQL version: 9.0.3
> Operating system: Windows server 2008 64bit
> Description:
>
> I t
The following bug has been logged on the website:
Bug reference: 7570
Logged by: Melese Tesfaye
Email address: mtesf...@gmail.com
PostgreSQL version: 9.2.1
Operating system: Ubuntu 12.04.1 LTS + Debian 6 (both x86_64
Description:
I had a problem with missing rows in a
The following bug has been logged on the website:
Bug reference: 7569
Logged by: Melese Tesfaye
Email address: mtesf...@gmail.com
PostgreSQL version: 9.2.1
Operating system: Ubuntu 12.04.1 LTS + Debian 6 (both x86_64
Description:
I had a problem with missing rows in a
Hello
Everything is ended well.
Few tests has been made with the 9.2.0 but unfortunatly it fails, I supposed
due to my own fault.
Others (better?) with 9.2.1 are working fine :
I add on folders (mainly tablespace and backup) RW access to postgres and
networkService
Thanks for the informations.
On Tue, Sep 18, 2012 at 09:09:13PM +0900, Fujii Masao wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 18, 2012 at 3:48 PM, Heikki Linnakangas
> wrote:
> > On 18.09.2012 09:46, Craig Ringer wrote:
> >>
> >> On 09/18/2012 07:57 AM, Fujii Masao wrote:
> >>>
> >>> If you change the max_connections on the master, you need to tak
Bruce Momjian writes:
> Is there any value to having * vs just not using ONLY? I am not sure
> documenting this is helping us, and it would add more clutter. Isn't
> this like how we don't document the old COPY syntax.
I beg your pardon? The old COPY syntax certainly is documented; see
the bot
On Sun, Sep 16, 2012 at 11:58:06PM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> barrybr...@sierracollege.edu writes:
> > I sometime see my users delete all rows from a table using a command like
> > this:
>
> > DELETE FROM customer *;
>
> > The question is: what is the star? Is it a table alias or an
> > output_expr
Am 25.09.2012 18:08, schrieb Tom Lane:
s.pro...@pharmatechnik.de writes:
The following bug has been logged on the website:
Bug reference: 7567
Logged by: Stefan Pröls
Email address: s.pro...@pharmatechnik.de
PostgreSQL version: 9.1.3
Operating system: OpenSUSE 11.4 32-Bit
D
16 matches
Mail list logo
