Re: [BUGS] Sequential Scan Index Bug
On Wed, 7 Apr 2004, Gabriel Weinberg wrote:
> Yes, I thought I had done that, but now that I figured out what was
> going on, I did it for all cases. So it is no longer occurring for
> me, but it still seems like a bug in PostgreSQL. I would expect it t
Original Message-
From: Stephan Szabo [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Wednesday, April 07, 2004 12:58 PM
To: Gabriel Weinberg
Cc: 'Bruno Wolff III'; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: RE: [BUGS] Sequential Scan Index Bug
On Wed, 7 Apr 2004, Gabriel Weinberg wrote:
> Presumably, but tha
Stephan Szabo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> It's possible that we could do something more intelligent than the current
> behavior for that case but I can't come up with a particularly good
> choice that wouldn't have bad effects elsewhere.
In theory we could recognize that "integer_column = 4.35"
On Wed, 7 Apr 2004, Gabriel Weinberg wrote:
> I would expect if I did intcol = 4.35 or intcol = 'abc', it would throw a
> type mismatch error.
Well, in practice, the former is AFAICS required to do something "right"
by the SQL spec because it explicitly states that all all numbers are
mutually c
On Wed, 7 Apr 2004, Gabriel Weinberg wrote:
> Presumably, but that is not what I was doing.
I was responding to the part that was: "I would expect it to throw an
error immediately, instead of scanning the table for a value of a
different type." If say intcol = 4.345 is an error, is intcol = 4.0
On Wed, 7 Apr 2004, Gabriel Weinberg wrote:
> Yes, I thought I had done that, but now that I figured out what was going
> on, I did it for all cases. So it is no longer occurring for me, but it
> still seems like a bug in PostgreSQL. I would expect it to throw an error
> immediately, instead of
Yes, I thought I had done that, but now that I figured out what was going
on, I did it for all cases. So it is no longer occurring for me, but it
still seems like a bug in PostgreSQL. I would expect it to throw an error
immediately, instead of scanning the table for a value of a different type.
I
On Sat, Apr 03, 2004 at 13:51:56 -0500,
Gabriel Weinberg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> I have a table with an integer column with about 10M rows in it.
>
> This column has an index (btree).
>
> When I try to select a row using this column with an integer, e.g. select *
> from table where id=4
I have a table with an integer column with about 10M rows in it.
This column has an index (btree).
When I try to select a row using this column with an integer, e.g. select *
from table where id=4, it always uses the index. However, if I select try
to select a row using this column with a decim
