Re: 7.4.xx regression

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: bs <bs(at)ionicsoft(dot)com>
Cc: pgsql-bugs(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: 7.4.xx regression
Date: 2004-01-26 17:00:28
Message-ID: 8357.1075136428@sss.pgh.pa.us
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-bugs

bs <bs(at)ionicsoft(dot)com> writes:
> I have upgraded to version 7.4.0 (compiling the software and migrating
> the database using dump/restore)

> Now the following plan is produced

> Hash Join (cost=17.08..42.15 rows=7 width=74)
> Hash Cond: ("outer".id = "inner".entry)
> -> Seq Scan on cddb (cost=0.00..20.00 rows=1000 width=74)
> -> Hash (cost=17.07..17.07 rows=6 width=4)
> -> Index Scan using cddbentry1 on cddbentry (cost=0.00..17.07
> rows=6 width=4)
> Index Cond: (diskid = 'toto'::text)

> which result in a VERY much slower query as the cddb table has more than
> 1 million entry.... and there is at most one entry in cddbentry
> which matches the diskid !

> I think this can classified as a regression bug.

No, it can be classified as a "user forgot to vacuum or analyze"
mistake. The estimates shown in the query plan look like the defaults
for an empty table.

regards, tom lane

In response to

Browse pgsql-bugs by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Bruce Momjian 2004-01-26 18:26:54 Re: BUG #1064: work with temporary table in plpgsql function
Previous Message Tom Lane 2004-01-26 16:58:30 Re: signal 11