On Sun, 2005-08-21 at 20:37 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> The whole thing's pretty bizarre.
I hate to sound obvious, but does the missing performance return if you
back the patch out? It seemed to have been decided on Tue, 16 Aug 2005
15:45:30 -0700 that the performance was the same before and after.
However, there also seems to be version confusion, as [EMAIL PROTECTED]
also claimed to be testing a tree from the future.
Basically I think there's more confusion here than evidence. On an
admittedly smaller x86 configuration, source trees with this patch are
faster than without, not slower.
And finally, not to start a flamewar, but the initial report was on a
machine running gentoo, the distribution that should be renamed
Irreproduceable Benchmarks Linux.
-jwb
---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
TIP 9: In versions below 8.0, the planner will ignore your desire to
choose an index scan if your joining column's datatypes do not
match
