Alle 18:53, giovedì 11 marzo 2004, hai scritto:
> Paolo Tavalazzi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > [ query plans after updating to 7.4.2 ]
>
> Okay, they're certainly a lot closer than before, so I think I was right
> that you were getting bitten somehow by the pg_statistic alignment
> problem. It
Alle 20:14, giovedì 11 marzo 2004, hai scritto:
> On Thu, Mar 11, 2004 at 09:43:57 +0100,
>
> Paolo Tavalazzi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Alle 19:12, mercoledì 10 marzo 2004, hai scritto:
> > > On Wed, Mar 10, 2004 at 18:33:41 +0100,
> > >
> > > Paolo Tavalazzi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
On Thu, Mar 11, 2004 at 09:43:57 +0100,
Paolo Tavalazzi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Alle 19:12, mercoledì 10 marzo 2004, hai scritto:
> > On Wed, Mar 10, 2004 at 18:33:41 +0100,
> >
> > Paolo Tavalazzi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > I don't know what to make, help me please!
> > >
> > > Anot
Paolo Tavalazzi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> [ query plans after updating to 7.4.2 ]
Okay, they're certainly a lot closer than before, so I think I was right
that you were getting bitten somehow by the pg_statistic alignment
problem. It seems like there may still be a bug lurking though. The
ro
Alle 19:40, mercoledì 10 marzo 2004, hai scritto:
> Paolo Tavalazzi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > I have applied the procedure for fixing pg_statistic as you had said,
> > but the result is the same!
>
> Hm. It could be a planner bug. Can you reproduce the misbehavior if
> you dump and load t
Paolo Tavalazzi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> But the query plans are still various!!
I think you made a copy-and-paste mistake, because the explain results
you posted are exactly the same ...
regards, tom lane
---(end of broadcast)
Alle 18:03, giovedì 11 marzo 2004, hai scritto:
> Paolo Tavalazzi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > But the query plans are still various!!
>
> I think you made a copy-and-paste mistake, because the explain results
> you posted are exactly the same ...
>
> regards, tom lane
E
On Wed, Mar 10, 2004 at 06:33:41PM +0100, Paolo Tavalazzi wrote:
> Another question, in 7.4 GROUP BY clause not guarantee the ordering of result.
> Can I desable the new group by algorithm to maintain the coherence whit the programs
> that I have in production with pg_7.3
Uf you're expecting ord
On Wed, Mar 10, 2004 at 18:33:41 +0100,
Paolo Tavalazzi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> I don't know what to make, help me please!
>
> Another question, in 7.4 GROUP BY clause not guarantee the ordering of result.
> Can I desable the new group by algorithm to maintain the coherence whit the pro
Paolo Tavalazzi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> I have applied the procedure for fixing pg_statistic as you had said, but the
> result is the same!
Hm. It could be a planner bug. Can you reproduce the misbehavior if
you dump and load the tables into a fresh database? If so, could you
send me t
Alle 16:54, mercoledì 10 marzo 2004, hai scritto:
> Paolo Tavalazzi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > I have two query that they are different only for order of the tables
> > in FROM lclause , but give back different query plan :
>
> Hm, seems like the planner is making wacko estimates in the second
Paolo Tavalazzi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> I have two query that they are different only for order of the tables
> in FROM lclause , but give back different query plan :
Hm, seems like the planner is making wacko estimates in the second case.
You didn't say what data types are involved in this
12 matches
Mail list logo
