On Sun, May 10, 2009 at 2:03 AM, David Fetter <david@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Sat, May 09, 2009 at 01:28:03PM -0400, Tom Lane wrote: >> Merlin Moncure <mmoncure@xxxxxxxxx> writes: >> > On Fri, May 8, 2009 at 5:40 PM, Alvaro Herrera >> > <alvherre@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> >> Yeah, we went over this on the spanish list, turned out that I >> >> couldn't remember about syncscan :-) >> >> > I like the new behavior. It really encourages proper use of order >> > by, because the natural ordering results are effectively >> > randomized. A class of subtle bugs has been made obvious. :) >> >> Not really, because the syncscan behavior only kicks in when your >> table gets large ... you'll never see it during devel testing on toy >> tables ... > > Good point. It's important not to test only on toy-sized tables for > lots and lots of good reasons, scale-dependence of sync scans being a > small one. Last job I was at I was the lone pgsql guy who worked with three Oracle DBAs, and quite a few of them were caught off guard by this type of behaviour (it was with hash_agg and reporting queries with group by). -- Sent via pgsql-general mailing list (pgsql-general@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-general
