Re: [GENERAL] PostgreSQL TPC-H test result? - Mailing list pgsql-performance

From Tom Lane
Subject Re: [GENERAL] PostgreSQL TPC-H test result?
Date
Msg-id 24184.1221191286@sss.pgh.pa.us
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: [GENERAL] PostgreSQL TPC-H test result?  ("Jignesh K. Shah" <J.K.Shah@Sun.COM>)
List pgsql-performance
"Jignesh K. Shah" <J.K.Shah@Sun.COM> writes:
> * However Empty rows results is occuring consistently
>   (Infact Q11 also returned empty for me while it worked in their test)
>   Queries: 4,5,6,10,11,12,14,15
>   (ACTION ITEM: I will start separate threads for each of those queries in
>    HACKERS alias to figure out the problem since it looks like Functional
>    problem to me and should be interesting to hackers alias)

See discussion suggesting that this is connected to misinterpretation of
INTERVAL literals.  If TPC-H relies heavily on syntax that we'd get
wrong, then pretty much every test result has to be under suspicion,
since we might be fetching many more or fewer rows than the test
intends.

I've recently committed fixes that I think would cover this, but you'd
really need to compare specific query rowcounts against other DBMSes
to make sure we're all on the same page.

            regards, tom lane

pgsql-performance by date:

Previous
From: "Jignesh K. Shah"
Date:
Subject: Re: [GENERAL] PostgreSQL TPC-H test result?
Next
From: Greg Smith
Date:
Subject: Re: Effects of setting linux block device readahead size