| From: | "Robert Haas" <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | "Tom Lane" <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | jd(at)commandprompt(dot)com, "Bruce Momjian" <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us>, "Greg Smith" <gsmith(at)gregsmith(dot)com>, "Gregory Stark" <stark(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>, "Josh Berkus" <josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: Do we still need constraint_exclusion? |
| Date: | 2009-01-07 17:26:32 |
| Message-ID: | 603c8f070901070926l4ff6661fw1011303c93b9a253@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
> ~ 10% slowdown on trivial queries will get noticed.
Agreed.
> I just thought of a possible compromise though: maybe we could invent an
> intermediate constraint_exclusion setting that makes the checks only for
> inheritance-child tables. This would avoid the overhead for simple
> queries and still get the benefit for most of the cases where it's
> actually useful. I'm not sure how hard this'd be to shoehorn into the
> planner, but if it's doable it might satisfy both camps.
+1
...Robert
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Joshua D. Drake | 2009-01-07 17:35:24 | Re: Do we still need constraint_exclusion? |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2009-01-07 17:19:15 | Re: Do we still need constraint_exclusion? |