I can't seem to reproduce this on a Ubuntu box on 9.1 or 9.2, nor can I seem to reproduce this with less than ~8 million rows on a windows one. I can reliably reproduce this with that many rows and the database dump is only ~120mb so if anyone is interested I can host it for them, otherwise I guess its not that serious or interesting.
Out of interest is there a debug build I can install or any steps I can take to investigate this? I'm just pretty curious as to why this would be occurring. ~Tom On Mon, Sep 17, 2012 at 9:44 PM, tom Tom <t...@tomforb.es> wrote: > Ok, I will try. I apologize, I made a mistake in the original post: > 'J. P. Bickella' returns the correct array and 'J. P. Bickell' returns > NULL. That's what you get for posting in a hurry! > > This is the first time I have run this query, so I don't know if it > affects previous versions. > > ~Tom > > On Mon, Sep 17, 2012 at 9:38 PM, Tom Lane <t...@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote: >> t...@tomforb.es writes: >>> I have two queries: >>> http://pgsql.privatepaste.com/7d1473defa >>> http://pgsql.privatepaste.com/85e1d43b7a >> >>> The first query returns NULL and the second one returns an int[] with 623 >>> elements in it. The only difference between the two queries is the last >>> string - 'J. P. Bickella' returns NULL and 'J. P. Bickell' returns an >>> int[]. >> >> That's ... bizarre. I assume you were running this same query without >> issues on earlier PG versions? Which? >> >>> If needed I can host the database this query is executing on for people to >>> download upon request, but it is 1.2gb in size. >> >> I suspect that you could reproduce the problem with a much smaller >> extract from the table, perhaps a couple thousand rows. Please try >> to create a self-contained test case along those lines --- it'll be >> easier all around than dealing with 1GB of data. >> >> regards, tom lane -- Sent via pgsql-bugs mailing list (pgsql-bugs@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-bugs
