On Tuesday 17 October 2006 22:55, Tom Lane wrote: > Robert Treat <xzilla@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes: > > When it happens it tends to look something like this: > > http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-performance/2006-01/msg00154.php > > > > Funny that for all the people who claim that improving the planner should > > be the primary goal that no one ever took interest in the above case. > > Well, you didn't provide sufficient data for anyone else to reproduce > the problem ... > Geez Tom, cut me some slack... no one even bothered to respond that that post with a "hey we can't tell cause we need more information"... not that it matters because here is where I reposted the problem with more information http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-performance/2006-01/msg00248.php where you'll note that Josh agreed with my thinking that there was an issue with the planner and he specifically asked for comments from you. And here is where I reposted the problem to -bugs http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-bugs/2006-01/msg00134.php where I make note of discussing this with several other people, got Bruce to hazard a guess which was debunked, and where I noted to Bruce about 10 days later that there had been no further action and no one had asked for the _sample database_ I was able to put together. -- Robert Treat Build A Brighter LAMP :: Linux Apache {middleware} PostgreSQL
