Gokulakannan Somasundaram wrote:
> On Jan 5, 2008 6:15 PM, <tomas(at)tuxteam(dot)de <mailto:tomas(at)tuxteam(dot)de>> wrote:
> One thought I had back then, with partitioned tables was "gee -- B-tree
> index is already doing a partition; why do a manual partition on top of
> Can you please explain more on what you are trying to say here?
I think this has to do with SE not being of much use for index scans. Or
put it another way: SE is an optimization for sequential scans. For
tables where it works well, it could possibly replace the index entirely.
Without the index, you would rely on SE to always be able to exclude
enough segments, so that the seq scan is less expensive than an index
scan with the following table lookups.
With an index, the planner gets a hard time deciding between the index
scan and the (possibly SE optimized) seq scan.
In response to
pgsql-hackers by date
|Next:||From: Markus Schiltknecht||Date: 2008-01-06 10:48:51|
|Subject: Re: Dynamic Partitioning using Segment Visibility Maps|
|Previous:||From: Joshua D. Drake||Date: 2008-01-06 09:50:12|
|Subject: Re: Bug: Unreferenced temp tables disables vacuum to update