Re: Query performance problems with partitioned tables

From: Richard Huxton <dev(at)archonet(dot)com>
To: Andreas Haumer <andreas(at)xss(dot)co(dot)at>
Cc: Guillaume Cottenceau <gc(at)mnc(dot)ch>, pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: Query performance problems with partitioned tables
Date: 2007-04-30 13:45:05
Message-ID: 4635F2E1.3090602@archonet.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-performance

Andreas Haumer wrote:
>
> I think the planner could do the following:
>
> a) It could make a better decision in which direction to scan
> the partitions (depending on sort order involved in the query)
>
> b) It could stop scanning as soon as there can not be any further
> resulting row according to the CHECK constraints given on the tables.
[snip]
> Perhaps the logic to implement this is complex, but IMHO
> it _should_ be doable (and proofable), shouldn't it?

Ah, it might be do-able for some subset of cases, but is it
cost-effective to check for in *all* cases? Don't forget the constraints
and where clauses can be arbitrarily complex.
--
Richard Huxton
Archonet Ltd

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-performance by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Guillaume Cottenceau 2007-04-30 13:54:39 Re: Query performance problems with partitioned tables
Previous Message Andreas Haumer 2007-04-30 13:29:30 Re: Query performance problems with partitioned tables