From: Carlos Moreno <moreno_pg@mochima.com>
To: arnaulist@andromeiberica.com
Cc: PostgreSQL Performance <pgsql-performance@postgresql.org>
Subject: Re: [OT] Very strange postgresql behaviour
Date: Mon, 29 Jan 2007 14:47:46 -0500
Message-ID: <45BE4F62.50007@mochima.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <45BE1589.9030804@andromeiberica.com>
References: <45BDE6E4.9050805@andromeiberica.com>
<20070129082706.0ef2df3b.wmoran@collaborativefusion.com>
<45BE1589.9030804@andromeiberica.com>
Arnau wrote:
> Hi Bill,
>
>> In response to Arnau <arnaulist@andromeiberica.com>:
>>
>>> I have postgresql 7.4.2 running on debian and I have the oddest
>>> postgresql behaviour I've ever seen.
>>>
>>> I do the following queries:
>>>
>>>
>>> espsm_asme=# select customer_app_config_id, customer_app_config_name
>>> from customer_app_config where customer_app_config_id = 5929 or
>>> customer_app_config_id = 11527 order by customer_app_config_id;
>>
Just wild guessing: is there any chance that there may be some form of
"implicit" limit modifier for the select statements on this table? Does
the
behaviour change if you add "limit 2" at the end of the query? Does it
change if you use customer_app_config_id in (5929, 11527) instead?
Another wild guess: if the data is somewhat corrupt, maybe a vacuum
analyze would detect it? Or perhaps try pg_dumping, to see if pg_dump
at some point complains about mssing or corrupt data?
HTH,
Carlos
--
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: moreno_pg@mochima.com, arnaulist@andromeiberica.com
Subject: Re: [OT] Very strange postgresql behaviour
In-Reply-To: <45BE4F62.50007@mochima.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