From: | Greg Stark <greg(dot)stark(at)enterprisedb(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Richard Huxton <dev(at)archonet(dot)com> |
Cc: | Floris Bos / Maxnet <bos(at)je-eigen-domein(dot)nl>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: Multicolumn index corruption on 8.4 beta 2 |
Date: | 2009-06-09 08:54:56 |
Message-ID: | 4DC8DD1D-A337-4BCF-94BC-6AB9C9EDAFD5@enterprisedb.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
And can you post an explain plan for the incorrect scan? In particular
is it using a bitmap index scan or a regular index scan? Or does it
happen with either?
--
Greg
On 9 Jun 2009, at 09:43, Richard Huxton <dev(at)archonet(dot)com> wrote:
> Floris Bos / Maxnet wrote:
>> I am having the problem that some queries are unable to find rows
>> when using the index.
>> When I force a sequential scan, by doing "set
>> enable_indexscan=false; set enable_bitmapscan=false;", the same
>> queries work fine.
>
> Not a hacker myself, but I can tell you that the first question
> you'll be asked is "can you produce a test case"? If you can
> generate the problem from a test table+generated data that will let
> people figure out the problem for you.
>
> If not, details of the table schema will be needed, and is there any
> pattern to the missed rows? Also - compile settings, character set
> and locale details might be relevant too.
>
> --
> Richard Huxton
> Archonet Ltd
>
> --
> Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org)
> To make changes to your subscription:
> http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Nikhil Sontakke | 2009-06-09 09:24:59 | Re: Patch for automating partitions in PostgreSQL 8.4 Beta 2 |
Previous Message | Richard Huxton | 2009-06-09 08:43:25 | Re: Multicolumn index corruption on 8.4 beta 2 |