To: "Jignesh K. Shah" <J.K.Shah@Sun.COM>
cc: Greg Smith <gsmith@gregsmith.com>, Amber <guxiaobo1982@hotmail.com>,
	pgsql-performance@postgresql.org
Subject: Re: [GENERAL] PostgreSQL TPC-H test result? 
In-reply-to: <48C9E25F.4070203@sun.com> 
References: <BLU139-DS5AB90A6E11E3F439F0006CD540@phx.gbl>
	<Pine.GSO.4.64.0809091723090.29002@westnet.com>
	<48C9E25F.4070203@sun.com>
Comments: In-reply-to "Jignesh K. Shah" <J.K.Shah@Sun.COM>
	message dated "Thu, 11 Sep 2008 23:30:39 -0400"
Date: Thu, 11 Sep 2008 23:48:06 -0400
Message-ID: <24184.1221191286@sss.pgh.pa.us>
From: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>

"Jignesh K. Shah" <J.K.Shah@Sun.COM> writes:
> * However Empty rows results is occuring consistently
>   (Infact Q11 also returned empty for me while it worked in their test)
>   Queries: 4,5,6,10,11,12,14,15
>   (ACTION ITEM: I will start separate threads for each of those queries in
>    HACKERS alias to figure out the problem since it looks like Functional
>    problem to me and should be interesting to hackers alias)

See discussion suggesting that this is connected to misinterpretation of
INTERVAL literals.  If TPC-H relies heavily on syntax that we'd get
wrong, then pretty much every test result has to be under suspicion,
since we might be fetching many more or fewer rows than the test
intends.

I've recently committed fixes that I think would cover this, but you'd
really need to compare specific query rowcounts against other DBMSes
to make sure we're all on the same page.

			regards, tom lane