From: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
To: Greg Stark <gsstark@mit.edu>
Cc: jacob@aers.ca
Cc: pgsql-sql@postgresql.org
Subject: Re: FW: Query length limitation in postgres server > 8.2.9
Date: Tue, 07 Jul 2009 20:58:20 -0400
Message-ID: <3760.1247014700@sss.pgh.pa.us> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <407d949e0907071743u20025562w8141c824019a204f@mail.gmail.com>
References: <6B5AF6293A289F45826220B17ABE7937FDB16C@BORON.aers.local>
<407d949e0907071743u20025562w8141c824019a204f@mail.gmail.com>
Greg Stark <gsstark@mit.edu> writes:
> On Tue, Jul 7, 2009 at 11:33 PM, <jacob@aers.ca> wrote:
>> After some investigation it seems that the new server is refusing to use the index's but if I
>> limit the number of arguments in the latter part of the statement to 100 then it works as
>> expected in the expected amount of time using the indexs.
> Ugh, I thought this sounded familiar. I think you're hitting this
> limit which was put in place in 8.2.12 to protect against very slow
> planning times for very long IN lists:
Nonsense ... unless perhaps the index is partial, and the IN condition
is relevant to proving it's legal to use the index? Given the lack of
any schema information in the complaint, I suppose I can't rule that
out, but one would hope the OP would have mentioned such a thing.
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-sql@postgresql.org
Cc: tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us, gsstark@mit.edu, jacob@aers.ca
Subject: Re: FW: Query length limitation in postgres server > 8.2.9
In-Reply-To: <3760.1247014700@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