| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Neil Conway <neilc(at)samurai(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Richard Huxton <dev(at)archonet(dot)com>, Bjorn T Johansen <btj(at)havleik(dot)no>, PostgreSQL General <pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org>, PostgreSQL Performance <pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: [PERFORM] Seq scan of table? |
| Date: | 2003-09-05 21:52:55 |
| Message-ID: | 20330.1062798775@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-general pgsql-performance |
Neil Conway <neilc(at)samurai(dot)com> writes:
> On Fri, 2003-09-05 at 06:07, Richard Huxton wrote:
>> You should find plenty of discussion of why in the archives, but the short
>> reason is that PG's type structure is quite flexible which means it can't
>> afford to make too many assumptions.
> Well, it's definitely a bug in PG, it's "quite flexible" type structure
> notwithstanding.
Let's say it's something we'd really like to fix ;-) ... and will, as
soon as we can figure out a cure that's not worse than the disease.
Dorking around with the semantics of numeric expressions has proven
to be a risky business. See, eg, the thread starting here:
http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-hackers/2002-11/msg00468.php
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Greg Stark | 2003-09-05 23:37:40 | Re: aggregate function |
| Previous Message | Alvaro Herrera | 2003-09-05 21:48:05 | Re: Panic Index!!!! |
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | andris | 2003-09-05 21:58:29 | Serious issues with CPU usage |
| Previous Message | Neil Conway | 2003-09-05 21:09:49 | Re: SELECT's take a long time compared to other DBMS |