RE: Bug in execution of EXISTS and IN clauses for large tables

Thank you Tom,

I agree, there is not much sense in dissecting it if it's not reproducible in the current versions.

Just to confirm (sorry if this is a trivial question) - the "exists" and "in" should never behave like an inner join, right?
Thanks.

Best wishes,
Martin



> -----Original Message-----
> From: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
> Sent: Tuesday, 22 February 2022 16:45
> To: David G. Johnston <david.g.johnston@gmail.com>
> Cc: Martin Kos <martin.kos@molecularhealth.com>; pgsql-
> bugs@lists.postgresql.org
> Subject: Re: Bug in execution of EXISTS and IN clauses for large tables
>
> Caution - External Sender: This message is from an external source and
> may contain unsafe content. Please do not click on any links or open any
> attachments unless you are sure. If in doubt, contact the MH Service Desk for
> a further plausibility check.
>
> "David G. Johnston" <david.g.johnston@gmail.com> writes:
> > This seems like a decent report (haven’t played with it), still,
> > version 11.1!
>
> Indeed. I can't see any problem in 11.current --- for me, the first four queries
> all give 44272445, the next 72002328, and the last two 60000000. So either
> we fixed it since 11.1, or the problem requires some nondefault setting that
> wasn't mentioned. I'm not particularly interested in bisecting to see where it
> was fixed.
>
> regards, tom lane