From: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
To: Gavin Hamill <gdh@laterooms.com>
Cc: pgsql-performance@postgresql.org
Subject: Re: Slow query - possible bug?
Date: Tue, 18 Apr 2006 15:51:44 -0400
Message-ID: <18448.1145389904@sss.pgh.pa.us> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20060418200839.1f948672.gdh@laterooms.com>
References: <443E3DF5.4020207@laterooms.com>
<3c1395330604130546g6b091f75x511955817fe65dcd@mail.gmail.com>
<443E4C9D.3090301@laterooms.com>
<20329.1144942010@sss.pgh.pa.us>
<44449E4C.7040804@laterooms.com>
<14985.1145381508@sss.pgh.pa.us>
<20060418200839.1f948672.gdh@laterooms.com>
Gavin Hamill <gdh@laterooms.com> writes:
> On Tue, 18 Apr 2006 13:31:48 -0400
> Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
>> There should be a fix for this by the time PG 8.2 comes out, but in
>> the meantime you might find that it helps to write the range check in
>> a way that doesn't have identical bounds, eg
>> date >= '2006-06-10'::date AND date < '2006-06-11'::date
> OK coolies - we've already had a code release for this (and other
> stuff) planned for tomorrow morning checking on the client side
> if a single date has been chosen, then do an equality test on that...
Fair enough, no reason to replace one workaround with another. But
would you try it on your test case, just to verify the diagnosis?
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-performance@postgresql.org
Cc: tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us, gdh@laterooms.com
Subject: Re: Slow query - possible bug?
In-Reply-To: <18448.1145389904@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