From: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
To: Jim C. Nasby <jnasby@pervasive.com>
Cc: Shaun Thomas <sthomas@leapfrogonline.com>
Cc: pgsql-performance@postgresql.org
Subject: Re: Confirmation of bad query plan generated by 7.4
Date: Tue, 13 Jun 2006 21:50:49 -0400
Message-ID: <18667.1150249849@sss.pgh.pa.us> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20060613223950.GK34196@pervasive.com>
References: <9119.1150222168@sss.pgh.pa.us>
<448EDFC4.8F27.00A9.0@leapfrogonline.com>
<20060613211347.GB34196@pervasive.com>
<10918.1150236282@sss.pgh.pa.us>
<20060613223950.GK34196@pervasive.com>
"Jim C. Nasby" <jnasby@pervasive.com> writes:
> On Tue, Jun 13, 2006 at 06:04:42PM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
>> It'd depend on the context, possibly, but it's easy to show that the
>> current planner does fold "now() - interval_constant" when making
>> estimates. Simple example:
> Turns out the difference is between feeding a date vs a timestamp into the
> query... I would have thought that since date is a date that the WHERE clause
> would be casted to a date if it was a timestamptz, but I guess not...
Hmm ... worksforme. Could you provide a complete test case?
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, jnasby@pervasive.com, sthomas@leapfrogonline.com
Subject: Re: Confirmation of bad query plan generated by 7.4
In-Reply-To: <18667.1150249849@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