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

Re: No hash join across partitioned tables?

From: Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>
To: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
Cc: Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)commandprompt(dot)com>, Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us>, Kris Jurka <books(at)ejurka(dot)com>, pgsql-performance <pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: No hash join across partitioned tables?
Date: 2010-10-26 12:23:26
Message-ID: AANLkTimdAB9gBJSwx2ggn0C=+OO-OQeXwuA8nQj=HsUu@mail.gmail.com (view raw or flat)
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackerspgsql-performance
On Sat, Oct 16, 2010 at 1:22 AM, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
> Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)commandprompt(dot)com> writes:
>> If we analyze the parent, do we also update the children stats, or is it
>> just that we keep two stats for the parent, one with children and one
>> without, both being updated when the parent is analyzed?
>
> The latter.
>
> The trick here is that we need to fire an analyze on the parent even
> though only its children may have had any updates.

Can we execute a SQL query at the point where we need this
information?  Because it doesn't seem too hard to work up a query that
totals the inserts, updates, and reltuples across all children of each
table.

-- 
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company

In response to

pgsql-performance by date

Next:From: Robert HaasDate: 2010-10-26 12:24:34
Subject: Re: Auto ANALYZE criteria
Previous:From: Szymon GuzDate: 2010-10-26 12:23:21
Subject: Re: which one is faster

pgsql-hackers by date

Next:From: Simon RiggsDate: 2010-10-26 12:27:29
Subject: Re: Simplifying replication
Previous:From: Simon RiggsDate: 2010-10-26 12:10:38
Subject: Re: ask for review of MERGE

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