Ok I'll do that, thanks a lot!
On Wed, 30 Nov 2022 at 18:45, Tom Lane wrote:
> Igor ALBUQUERQUE SILVA writes:
> > Thanks a lot for the explanation, I thought the built-in types were more
> > standard, so I didn't mention that I was having the same thing using
> > postgis.
>
> Hm --- you'd have
Igor ALBUQUERQUE SILVA writes:
> Thanks a lot for the explanation, I thought the built-in types were more
> standard, so I didn't mention that I was having the same thing using
> postgis.
Hm --- you'd have to take that up with the PostGIS people. But they
at least would be likely to have
Hi Tom,
Thanks a lot for the explanation, I thought the built-in types were more
standard, so I didn't mention that I was having the same thing using
postgis. Here's the example (I changed the values a little bit to avoid
rounding errors):
create table test(p geometry(point));
insert into
Igor ALBUQUERQUE SILVA writes:
> I'm having a problem regarding the point type/gist indexes. Here's a
> minimal reproduction of it:
> ...
> What I was expecting is the first query to estimate 4 rows and the second
> to estimate 1, like what I get If I try the same thing using integers.
I'm sorry, I sent the wrong EXPLAIN ANALYZE for the first query, this is
the correct one:
Seq Scan on test (cost=0.00..1.06 rows=1 width=16) (actual
time=0.018..0.022 rows=4 loops=1)
Filter: (p <@ '(1,1),(0,0)'::box)
Rows Removed by Filter: 1
Planning Time: 0.211 ms
Execution Time: 0.051
Hello everyone,
I'm having a problem regarding the point type/gist indexes. Here's a
minimal reproduction of it:
create table test(p point);
insert into test(p) values (point(0, 0));
insert into test(p) values (point(0, 1));
insert into test(p) values (point(1, 0));
insert into test(p) values
Andres Freund writes:
> On November 30, 2022 3:47:32 AM PST, Andrew Dunstan
> wrote:
>> I think Alvaro's point is that it would have been better to work out
>> these wrinkles before turning on JIT by default. Based on anecdotal
>> reports from the field I'm inclined to agree.
> The problem is
Hi,
On November 30, 2022 3:47:32 AM PST, Andrew Dunstan wrote:
>
>On 2022-11-29 Tu 16:06, David Rowley wrote:
>> On Wed, 30 Nov 2022 at 03:31, Tom Lane wrote:
>>> Alvaro Herrera writes:
IMO it was a mistake to turn JIT on in the default config, so that's one
thing you'll likely want
On 2022-11-29 Tu 16:06, David Rowley wrote:
> On Wed, 30 Nov 2022 at 03:31, Tom Lane wrote:
>> Alvaro Herrera writes:
>>> IMO it was a mistake to turn JIT on in the default config, so that's one
>>> thing you'll likely want to change.
>> I wouldn't necessarily go quite that far, but I do think
