Re: Table partitioning

Can we see the output of \d tablename as well as EXPLAIN ANALYZE of the
select?

On Wed, Apr 26, 2006 at 02:48:50PM -0600, Benjamin Krajmalnik wrote:
> Actually, right now there is no data in those partitions.
>
> All of the data is currently in the parent table (I have not yet created
> the trigger which will route the data to the correct partition).
>
> I just found to items intriguing - first, that the indices and other
> properties other than the field definition were not inherited (is this
> how this is supposed to work?), and second, that PG first retrieves the
> entire result set and then limits it (or at least that appear to be how
> it is working).
>
> If the order by clause were an expression, I can understand where it
> would have to first retrieve the entire resultset and then limit it.
> However, when we are dealing with an order by clause running on an index
> or primary key, I would figure that it would only retrieve the number of
> rows limited, or if an offset is specified then go to the offset and
> only process the "limit" number of rows.
>
>
>
>
>
> ________________________________
>
> From: Chris Hoover [mailto:revoohc(at)gmail(dot)com]
> Sent: Wednesday, April 26, 2006 2:33 PM
> To: Benjamin Krajmalnik
> Cc: pgsql-admin(at)postgresql(dot)org
> Subject: Re: [ADMIN] Tale partitioning
>
>
>
> Each of the partition tables needs it's own set of indexes. Build them,
> and see if the does not fix your performance issues. Also, be sure you
> turned on the constraint_exclusion parameter, and each table (other than
> the "master") has an constraint on it that is unique.
>
> HTH,
>
> Chris
>
>
>
>

--
Jim C. Nasby, Sr. Engineering Consultant jnasby(at)pervasive(dot)com
Pervasive Software http://pervasive.com work: 512-231-6117
vcard: http://jim.nasby.net/pervasive.vcf cell: 512-569-9461