Thanks Ian for your long answer :) :
2007/10/3, Ian S Eslick <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>
> When you say indexes are not sequential, do you mean UIDs are not
> sequentially allocated? I think there is a BDB sequence issue that I've
> never worried about that jumps to the nearest 100 when you reconnect
When you get that 2 second result, have you declared an index on the
fields you are sorting on or is this a full sort + count + offset query?
At least from what I can tell of the PostgreSQL implementation of
SQL, the optimizer doesn't keep accurate counts for the underlying
table so always
On 10/4/07, Robert L. Read <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Dear Slobodan,
>
> I suspect that this Lispworks dependent-bug, since it appears to be in
> the serializer, and related to type-dependent information.
>
> Have you run the test suite? I suspect that seeing which tests fail or
> succeed woul
