Re: [BUGS] BUG #3085: Performance BUG

2007-03-18 Thread Tom Lane
"Alexander Kirpa" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Sorry for long reply delay. > Yes. Both previous samples is different, > but I speak about incorrect planner work - see multiple 'aggregate'. > Try as alternative next sample: Well, I'm not sure I want to prevent the thing from flattening subqueries

Re: [BUGS] BUG #3085: Performance BUG

2007-03-18 Thread Alexander Kirpa
On 1 Mar 2007, at 11:28, Tom Lane wrote: > "" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > Description:Performance BUG > > You haven't actually shown us any bug. These are not the same query > and there's no reason to expect them to take the same amount of time. > >regards, tom lane > Hi, Tom!

Re: [BUGS] BUG #3085: Performance BUG

2007-03-01 Thread Tom Lane
"" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Description:Performance BUG You haven't actually shown us any bug. These are not the same query and there's no reason to expect them to take the same amount of time. regards, tom lane ---(end of broadcast)-

[BUGS] BUG #3085: Performance BUG

2007-03-01 Thread
The following bug has been logged online: Bug reference: 3085 Logged by: Email address: [EMAIL PROTECTED] PostgreSQL version: 8.2.3 Operating system: FreeBSD 6.1 Description:Performance BUG Details: Test sequence: %psql test create table t1 (i4 int4); insert into t