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 ...
Cybertec Schönig & Schönig GmbH
A-2700 Wiener Neustadt, Austria
In response to
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 ... |