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
