Skip site navigation (1) Skip section navigation (2)

Re: plan time of MASSIVE partitioning ...

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: Boszormenyi Zoltan <zb(at)cybertec(dot)at>
Cc: Heikki Linnakangas <heikki(dot)linnakangas(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>, Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)commandprompt(dot)com>, Stephen Frost <sfrost(at)snowman(dot)net>, Hans-Jürgen Schönig <postgres(at)cybertec(dot)at>, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>, Josh Berkus <josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com>
Subject: Re: plan time of MASSIVE partitioning ...
Date: 2010-10-28 13:36:57
Message-ID: 11493.1288273017@sss.pgh.pa.us (view raw or flat)
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers
Boszormenyi Zoltan <zb(at)cybertec(dot)at> writes:
> This means add_child_rel_equivalences() is still takes
> too much time, the previously posted test case calls this
> function 482 times, it's called for almost  every 10th entry
> added to eq_classes. The elog() I put into this function says
> that at the last call list_length(eq_classes) == 4754.

That seems like a ridiculously large number of ECs.  What is the
test query again?

			regards, tom lane

In response to

Responses

pgsql-hackers by date

Next:From: Tom LaneDate: 2010-10-28 13:49:06
Subject: Re: plan time of MASSIVE partitioning ...
Previous:From: Merlin MoncureDate: 2010-10-28 13:13:22
Subject: Re: Postgres insert performance and storage requirement compared to Oracle

Privacy Policy | About PostgreSQL
Copyright © 1996-2014 The PostgreSQL Global Development Group