On Sun, Mar 7, 2010 at 12:57 PM, Josh Berkus wrote:
>>> Yeah, I can generate one pretty easily; the behavior is readily
>>> observable and repeatable. Will get on it RSN, but at you said, we're
>>> not doing anything about it for 9.0.
>
> Well, I can generate a test case, but on examination it tu
Robert,
>> Yeah, I can generate one pretty easily; the behavior is readily
>> observable and repeatable. Will get on it RSN, but at you said, we're
>> not doing anything about it for 9.0.
Well, I can generate a test case, but on examination it turns out to be
nothing to do with partitioning; it'
On Wed, Mar 3, 2010 at 4:45 PM, Josh Berkus wrote:
>> I feel like I've seen these way-too-high row estimates in some other
>> postings to -performance, but I'm not sure if it was the same issue.
>> You don't by chance have a RTC? I don't think it's likely fixed in 9.0
>> but it would be interestin
> I feel like I've seen these way-too-high row estimates in some other
> postings to -performance, but I'm not sure if it was the same issue.
> You don't by chance have a RTC? I don't think it's likely fixed in 9.0
> but it would be interesting to investigate.
Yeah, I can generate one pretty easi
On Sun, Feb 28, 2010 at 3:19 PM, Josh Berkus wrote:
> All,
>
> I'm seeing in a production database two problems with query rowcount
> estimation:
>
> (1) Estimates for the number of rows in an outer join do not take into
> account any constraint exclusion (CE) in operation.
>
> (2) Row estimates d
All,
I'm seeing in a production database two problems with query rowcount
estimation:
(1) Estimates for the number of rows in an outer join do not take into
account any constraint exclusion (CE) in operation.
(2) Row estimates do not take into account if the unique indexes on the
child partition
