Re: Index-only scan returns incorrect results when using a composite GIST index with a gist_trgm_ops column. - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Tom Lane
Subject Re: Index-only scan returns incorrect results when using a composite GIST index with a gist_trgm_ops column.
Date
Msg-id 14643.1539629304@sss.pgh.pa.us
Whole thread Raw
List pgsql-hackers
Kyotaro HORIGUCHI <horiguchi.kyotaro@lab.ntt.co.jp> writes:
> At Thu, 01 Mar 2018 15:39:18 -0500, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote in <22609.1519936758@sss.pgh.pa.us>
>> ...  After some poking
>> around I found that the bug could be exhibited using just btree_gist's
>> gist_inet_ops, since the core inet_ops class indexes the same datatype and
>> it does have a fetch function.  So I added a test case in btree_gist.

> Ah, It wasn't in my sight to test core in contrib. Thanks for
> improving it.

I've just noticed that this new test case is sometimes failing on
CLOBBER_CACHE_ALWAYS buildfarm animals, eg here:

https://buildfarm.postgresql.org/cgi-bin/show_log.pl?nm=jaguarundi&dt=2018-10-14%2022%3A11%3A00

(I've seen some similar failures before but hadn't looked into the
reason for them.)

I can duplicate the plan choice shown here if I stick in "ANALYZE
inettmp", so presumably what is happening is that sometimes a
background auto-analyze is managing to run and change the rowcount
estimate.

We don't really care about bitmap indexscan vs regular here, rather
about index-only vs regular, so there's not anything much wrong with
using the post-ANALYZE behavior.  So I think what we should do to
make this test case more stable is to change the VACUUM to VACUUM
ANALYZE and accept the ensuing change in expected plan.

I doubt this test failure would ever occur in normal builds, so I'm
not going to risk touching it immediately before a release wrap.
But I'll make the change tomorrow or so.

            regards, tom lane


pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Corey Huinker
Date:
Subject: Re: CopyFrom() has become way too complicated
Next
From: Alexander Korotkov
Date:
Subject: Re: Pluggable Storage - Andres's take