On Sep 3, 2010, at 4:40 PM, Tom Lane wrote:

> =?iso-8859-1?Q?PostgreSQL_-_Hans-J=FCrgen_Sch=F6nig?= <postgres(at)cybertec(dot)at> writes:
>> imagine a system with, say, 1000 partitions (heavily indexed) or so. the time taken by the planner is already fairly heavy in this case.
> 
> As the fine manual points out, the current scheme for managing
> partitioned tables isn't intended to scale past a few dozen partitions.
> 
> I think we'll be able to do better when we have an explicit
> representation of partitioning, since then the planner won't
> have to expend large amounts of effort reverse-engineering knowledge
> about how an inheritance tree is partitioned.  Before that happens,
> it's not really worth the trouble to worry about such cases.
> 
> 			regards, tom lane
> 


thank you ... - the manual is clear here but we wanted to see if there is some reasonably low hanging fruit to get around this.
it is no solution but at least a clear statement ...

	many thanks,

		hans


--
Cybertec Schönig & Schönig GmbH
Gröhrmühlgasse 26
A-2700 Wiener Neustadt, Austria
Web: http://www.postgresql-support.de

In response to

• Re: plan time of MASSIVE partitioning ... at 2010-09-03 14:40:54 from Tom Lane

pgsql-hackers by date

Next:	From: Tom Lane	Date: 2010-09-03 14:51:37
	Subject: Re: Interruptible sleeps (was Re: CommitFest 2009-07: Yay, Kevin! Thanks, reviewers!)
Previous:	From: Tom Lane	Date: 2010-09-03 14:40:54
	Subject: Re: plan time of MASSIVE partitioning ...