From: Gavin Hamill <gdh@laterooms.com>
To: pgsql-performance@postgresql.org
Subject: Re: Slow query - possible bug?
Date: Tue, 18 Apr 2006 20:08:39 +0100
Message-ID: <20060418200839.1f948672.gdh@laterooms.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <14985.1145381508@sss.pgh.pa.us>
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>
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...
otherwise leave the between in place - seems to work like a charm, and
hopefully it'll mean we don't have a loadavg of 15 on our main pg
server tomorrow (!) :))
Basically, as long as I know it's a pg issue rather than something daft
I've done (or not done) then I'm happy enough.
Cheers,
Gavin.
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: gdh@laterooms.com
Subject: Re: Slow query - possible bug?
In-Reply-To: <20060418200839.1f948672.gdh@laterooms.com>
* 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