| From: | Richard Huxton <dev(at)archonet(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, David Teran <david(dot)teran(at)cluster9(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Stephan Szabo <sszabo(at)megazone(dot)bigpanda(dot)com>, PgSQL Performance ML <pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: another query optimization question |
| Date: | 2004-01-30 20:25:24 |
| Message-ID: | 200401302025.24541.dev@archonet.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-performance |
On Friday 30 January 2004 19:19, Tom Lane wrote:
>
> The hash-join total time is obviously wrong seeing that the total
> runtime is only about 100000 msec, and the negative values for the other
> two are even more obviously wrong.
>
> I recall that we saw similar symptoms once before, and I thought we'd
> fixed it, but I didn't find any relevant mentions in the CVS logs.
You're not thinking of the -ve durations on the auto-vacuum gizmo? Something
to do with system clock accuracy IIRC.
--
Richard Huxton
Archonet Ltd
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | David Teran | 2004-01-30 22:02:43 | Re: another query optimization question |
| Previous Message | Reece Hart | 2004-01-30 19:27:33 | Re: query optimization differs between view and explicit |