New compile warnings for inheritance
I am seeing the following regression failures with CVS head and
inheritance tests. They look like sort order problems:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
*** ./expected/inherit.out Wed Dec 1 16:53:51 2004
--- ./results/inherit.out Wed Dec 1 17:10:12 2004
***************
*** 561,573 ****
relname | f1 | f2
---------+----+-----
bar | 4 | 4
- bar | 3 | 103
- bar | 2 | 102
bar | 1 | 101
bar2 | 4 | 4
- bar2 | 3 | 103
- bar2 | 2 | 102
bar2 | 1 | 101
(8 rows) /* Test inheritance of structure (LIKE) */
--- 561,573 ----
relname | f1 | f2
---------+----+-----
bar | 4 | 4
bar | 1 | 101
+ bar | 2 | 102
+ bar | 3 | 103
bar2 | 4 | 4
bar2 | 1 | 101
+ bar2 | 2 | 102
+ bar2 | 3 | 103
(8 rows)/* Test inheritance of structure (LIKE) */
======================================================================
--
Bruce Momjian | http://candle.pha.pa.us
pgman@candle.pha.pa.us | (610) 359-1001
+ If your life is a hard drive, | 13 Roberts Road
+ Christ can be your backup. | Newtown Square, Pennsylvania 19073
Bruce Momjian <pgman@candle.pha.pa.us> writes:
I am seeing the following regression failures with CVS head and
inheritance tests. They look like sort order problems:
Does it go away if you initdb? I suspect the size of pg_class is a
factor in the choice of plan for that query. You seem to still be
getting the old plan ...
regards, tom lane
Tom Lane wrote:
Bruce Momjian <pgman@candle.pha.pa.us> writes:
I am seeing the following regression failures with CVS head and
inheritance tests. They look like sort order problems:Does it go away if you initdb? I suspect the size of pg_class is a
factor in the choice of plan for that query. You seem to still be
getting the old plan ...
An initdb does not change the regression failure. Sorry.
--
Bruce Momjian | http://candle.pha.pa.us
pgman@candle.pha.pa.us | (610) 359-1001
+ If your life is a hard drive, | 13 Roberts Road
+ Christ can be your backup. | Newtown Square, Pennsylvania 19073Bruce Momjian <pgman@candle.pha.pa.us> writes:
Tom Lane wrote:
Does it go away if you initdb? I suspect the size of pg_class is a
factor in the choice of plan for that query. You seem to still be
getting the old plan ...
An initdb does not change the regression failure. Sorry.
Hmph. I'm unsure why there's a platform dependency there, but we should
probably just add an ORDER BY to suppress it. Will do.
regards, tom lane
Tom Lane wrote:
Bruce Momjian <pgman@candle.pha.pa.us> writes:
Tom Lane wrote:
Does it go away if you initdb? I suspect the size of pg_class is a
factor in the choice of plan for that query. You seem to still be
getting the old plan ...An initdb does not change the regression failure. Sorry.
Hmph. I'm unsure why there's a platform dependency there, but we should
probably just add an ORDER BY to suppress it. Will do.
Why did it just appear? Optimizer changes in the past few days?
--
Bruce Momjian | http://candle.pha.pa.us
pgman@candle.pha.pa.us | (610) 359-1001
+ If your life is a hard drive, | 13 Roberts Road
+ Christ can be your backup. | Newtown Square, Pennsylvania 19073Bruce Momjian <pgman@candle.pha.pa.us> writes:
Tom Lane wrote:
Hmph. I'm unsure why there's a platform dependency there, but we should
probably just add an ORDER BY to suppress it. Will do.
Why did it just appear? Optimizer changes in the past few days?
I did just change the planner, but what I don't understand at the moment
is why the results changed for me and not for you.
It looks like it's not actually the join to pg_class that is determining
this, but the plan used for the UPDATE just above it. That involves
only freshly-created tables and so it ought to be pretty much the same
planner problem for everyone. Odd. I'm building now on a Linux machine
to see if I can reproduce your result when using little-endian hardware.
regards, tom lane
On Wed, 2004-12-01 at 17:22 -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
Bruce Momjian <pgman@candle.pha.pa.us> writes:
I am seeing the following regression failures with CVS head and
inheritance tests. They look like sort order problems:Does it go away if you initdb? I suspect the size of pg_class is a
factor in the choice of plan for that query. You seem to still be
getting the old plan ...
I see regression test failures in both inheritence and join (after a
fresh initdb). Attached is the regression.diffs, gzip'ed.
-Neil
Attachments:
Neil Conway <neilc@samurai.com> writes:
I see regression test failures in both inheritence and join (after a
fresh initdb). Attached is the regression.diffs, gzip'ed.
Yeah, so do I on a Linux machine. It looks like the dynamic size
estimates are highlighting some platform dependencies, such as the
effect of different MAXALIGN values on the costs, that we happened not
to see in the regression tests before. I'm working on cleaning it up
...
regards, tom lane
Neil Conway <neilc@samurai.com> writes:
Bruce Momjian <pgman@candle.pha.pa.us> writes:
I am seeing the following regression failures with CVS head and
inheritance tests. They look like sort order problems:
I see regression test failures in both inheritence and join (after a
fresh initdb). Attached is the regression.diffs, gzip'ed.
Okay, I committed some tweaks to reduce platform dependencies. I get
passes now on all three platforms I have handy.
regards, tom lane
On Wed, Dec 01, 2004 at 08:35:40PM -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
Okay, I committed some tweaks to reduce platform dependencies. I get
passes now on all three platforms I have handy.
It passes on my FreeBSD 4.10-STABLE box.
Don't know about Solaris 9/sparc yet -- the whole dance takes over
an hour on my (t)rusty ol' Ultra 1.
--
Michael Fuhr
http://www.fuhr.org/~mfuhr/
On Wed, Dec 01, 2004 at 08:10:24PM -0700, Michael Fuhr wrote:
Don't know about Solaris 9/sparc yet -- the whole dance takes over
an hour on my (t)rusty ol' Ultra 1.
Solaris 9/sparc passes all tests.
--
Michael Fuhr
http://www.fuhr.org/~mfuhr/