Received: from localhost (uranus.hub.org [200.46.204.60]) by postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1062C9FA3A7 for ; Fri, 3 Nov 2006 13:26:53 -0400 (AST) Received: from postgresql.org ([200.46.204.71]) by localhost (mx1.hub.org [200.46.204.60]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 80385-01 for ; Fri, 3 Nov 2006 13:26:49 -0400 (AST) X-Greylist: from auto-whitelisted by SQLgrey- Received: from sss.pgh.pa.us (sss.pgh.pa.us [66.207.139.130]) by postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0F4C09FB215 for ; Fri, 3 Nov 2006 13:26:48 -0400 (AST) Received: from sss2.sss.pgh.pa.us (tgl@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by sss.pgh.pa.us (8.13.6/8.13.6) with ESMTP id kA3HQawR003890; Fri, 3 Nov 2006 12:26:36 -0500 (EST) To: Jeff Frost cc: pgsql-sql@postgresql.org Subject: Re: delete and select with IN clause issues In-reply-to: References: <24512.1162525800@sss.pgh.pa.us> <26796.1162535008@sss.pgh.pa.us> <27200.1162537088@sss.pgh.pa.us> Comments: In-reply-to Jeff Frost message dated "Thu, 02 Nov 2006 23:10:50 -0800" Date: Fri, 03 Nov 2006 12:26:36 -0500 Message-ID: <3889.1162574796@sss.pgh.pa.us> From: Tom Lane X-Virus-Scanned: Maia Mailguard 1.0.1 X-Archive-Number: 200611/39 X-Sequence-Number: 26691 Jeff Frost writes: > Well, I spoke to soon on the it all works front. So, it's been > reindexed and appears to be working properly now. I guess I'll keep > an eye on it for a while. I didn't get your query suggestion in time, > so hopefully I grabbed the right binary file..though it did seem to > disappear after the reindex, so I think it's likely the correct one. > Definitely got the correct second one. Well, I can't find anything wrong :-(. There are some differences in the list of contained keys, but they're all up near the end of the range, which is consistent with the assumption that the table is live and had some changes between your two dumps of the index. In particular, there's no difference in the entries for the troublesome key value: 38635629 24080 25 38635629 24080 26 38635629 24080 27 So I dunno what to make of it. If it happens again, we need to look more closely. regards, tom lane