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

Re: Join optimization for inheritance tables

From: Josh Berkus <josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com>
To:
Cc: pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: Join optimization for inheritance tables
Date: 2009-09-23 00:35:36
Message-ID: 4AB96D58.1080808@agliodbs.com (view raw or flat)
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers
> As I understand it, partitioning will certainly lead to some significant
> changes/enhancements to the planner. Do you think it is realistic to get
> that for 8.5?

I don't think that waiting for our plans for a more robust partitioning
implementation is a reason to put off improvements to the implementation
we have.  If Simon or Pavel or someone was going all-out on getting the
new partitioning ready, that would be one thing.  But to date, nobody
has volunteered to work on it; we just know we need it.

Of course, that completely leaves aside Tom's critique of the
implementation, which sounds like it needs some work.  Trying to fit the
target table into a range partitioning mold would break with a lot of
real partitionings; for example I have several client DBs which are
partitioned active/inactive-by-date.

What about simply eliminating joins between partitioned tables by
checking which columns' constraints match exactly or are subsets?  A lot
of partitioned DBs partition everything by month, and joining two tables
which were partitioned by month would be useful by itself.

-- 
Josh Berkus
PostgreSQL Experts Inc.
www.pgexperts.com

In response to

Responses

pgsql-hackers by date

Next:From: Michael PaquierDate: 2009-09-23 02:14:30
Subject: Re: [PATCH] pgbench: new feature allowing to launch shell commands
Previous:From: Jeff DavisDate: 2009-09-23 00:06:58
Subject: Re: Join optimization for inheritance tables

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