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

Re: No hash join across partitioned tables?

From: Grzegorz Jaƛkiewicz <gryzman(at)gmail(dot)com>
To: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
Cc: Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us>, Kris Jurka <books(at)ejurka(dot)com>, pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: No hash join across partitioned tables?
Date: 2010-03-02 16:27:14
Message-ID: 2f4958ff1003020827o76dfd233mbd0602093eb65c4a@mail.gmail.com (view raw or flat)
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackerspgsql-performance
On Tue, Mar 2, 2010 at 4:23 PM, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:

> Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
> > On Thu, Feb 25, 2010 at 7:03 PM, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
> >> Partially.  There are stats now but autovacuum is not bright about
> >> when to update them.
>
> > Is that something you're planning to fix for 9.0?  If not, we at least
> > need to document what we intend for people to do about it.
>
> I want to look at it, but I'm not sure whether the fix will be small
> enough that we want to put it in during beta.
>
> I am pretty sure many people will appreciate it, even if it isn't going to
be small.

Is that stat collection across child tables any useful by it self ?

-- 
GJ

In response to

pgsql-performance by date

Next:From: Francisco ReyesDate: 2010-03-02 20:42:37
Subject: 10K vs 15k rpm for analytics
Previous:From: Robert HaasDate: 2010-03-02 16:23:22
Subject: Re: GiST index performance

pgsql-hackers by date

Next:From: Tom LaneDate: 2010-03-02 16:29:58
Subject: Re: USE_LIBXSLT in MSVC builds
Previous:From: Tom LaneDate: 2010-03-02 16:23:18
Subject: Re: No hash join across partitioned tables?

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