Re: Predicate locking

From: "Kevin Grittner" <Kevin(dot)Grittner(at)wicourts(dot)gov>
To: "Greg Smith" <greg(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, "Dan Ports" <drkp(at)csail(dot)mit(dot)edu>
Cc: "Vlad Arkhipov" <arhipov(at)dc(dot)baikal(dot)ru>, <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: Predicate locking
Date: 2011-05-04 02:07:57
Message-ID: 4DC06EAD020000250003D213@gw.wicourts.gov
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Greg Smith <greg(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> wrote:

> However, if I increase the generate_series to create 349 rows (or
> more) instead, it works.

> I don't fully understand why this attempt I tried to do that is
> working the way it does though.

Check where the plan goes from a table scan to an indexed access.
Also look at what is showing for SIRead locks in pg_locks as you go.
Between those two bits of information, it should become apparent.

> I don't think Vlad is being unreasonable here; he's provided a
> test case demonstrating the behavior he'd like to see, and shown
> it doesn't work as expected.

... on a toy table with contrived values. How different is this
from the often-asked question about why a query against a four-line
table is not using the index they expect, and how can we expect it
to scale if it doesn't? I agree that it's not unreasonable for
someone to ask either question. If my response falls short, I'm
game to try again.

-Kevin

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Tom Lane 2011-05-04 02:28:05 Re: Extreme bloating of intarray GiST indexes
Previous Message David Blewett 2011-05-04 01:53:48 Re: branching for 9.2devel