From: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
To: Ghiurea, Isabella <Isabella.Ghiurea@nrc-cnrc.gc.ca>
Cc: pgsql-admin@postgresql.org <pgsql-admin@postgresql.org>
Subject: Re: PGSQL 10.9 vs PGSQL 9.6 SQL query behaviour.
Date: Mon, 21 Oct 2019 15:18:13 -0400
Message-ID: <4112.1571685493@sss.pgh.pa.us> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <1571677730032.95714@nrc-cnrc.gc.ca>
References: <1571677730032.95714@nrc-cnrc.gc.ca>
"Ghiurea, Isabella" <Isabella.Ghiurea@nrc-cnrc.gc.ca> writes:
> we are facing some performance issues with same SQL running in different version ( PG SQL 10.9 vs
> 9.5.16)returning different results when using GIST spatial index see bellow ,
Getting the wrong answer isn't a "performance issue" :-(
You might find that reindexing the index makes the problem go away.
Otherwise, I'd suggest inquiring in the PostGIS mailing list whether
there's any known bugs in their code for 10.x. I don't see anything
in our commit logs suggesting that there's a known problem with the
core GIST code, but maybe there's something wrong with the PostGIS
operator class the index is using.
regards, tom lane
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Reply to all the recipients using the --to and --cc options:
reply via email
To: pgsql-admin@postgresql.org
Cc: tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us, Isabella.Ghiurea@nrc-cnrc.gc.ca
Subject: Re: PGSQL 10.9 vs PGSQL 9.6 SQL query behaviour.
In-Reply-To: <4112.1571685493@sss.pgh.pa.us>
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
This inbox is served by DDX for PostgreSQL; see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox