Re: Materializing a sequential scan - Mailing list pgsql-performance

From Steinar H. Gunderson
Subject Re: Materializing a sequential scan
Date
Msg-id 20051027001348.GA7756@uio.no
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: Materializing a sequential scan  (Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>)
Responses Re: Materializing a sequential scan  (Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>)
List pgsql-performance
On Wed, Oct 26, 2005 at 07:53:02PM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> I don't think you're getting a correct reading for optup, but OID
> 2373 is timestamp = date:
>
> [...]
>
> My recollection is that there was no such operator in 7.4; probably in
> 7.4 the IN ended up using timestamp = timestamp which is hashable.

You are quite correct, there is no such operator (whether by oid or by
description) in my 7.4 installation.

> What's not clear though is why you're getting that operator --- aren't
> both sides of the IN of type "date"?

Aha!

Figured out the "start" column wasn't the problem after all. The problem was
the "stopp" column, which was timestamp on one side and date on the other...

So, it can be fixed for this instance, but this feels a bit like the pre-8.0
joins on differing data types -- is there any way to fix it? :-)

/* QSteinar */
--
Homepage: http://www.sesse.net/

pgsql-performance by date:

Previous
From: Tom Lane
Date:
Subject: Re: Materializing a sequential scan
Next
From: Tom Lane
Date:
Subject: Re: Materializing a sequential scan