Re: [PERFORM] Seq scan of table?

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

In response to

Browse pgsql-general by date

  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!!!!

Browse pgsql-performance by date

  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