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

Re: Why do I need more time with partition table?

From: Jeff Janes <jeff(dot)janes(at)gmail(dot)com>
To: AI Rumman <rummandba(at)gmail(dot)com>
Cc: Jan Otto <asche(at)me(dot)com>, pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: Why do I need more time with partition table?
Date: 2012-07-25 14:55:55
Message-ID: CAMkU=1xBxA16on2WqDGhUgSvm3b7+hf92d1+VZTw3qu-nJWnZA@mail.gmail.com (view raw or flat)
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-performance
On Wed, Jul 25, 2012 at 1:40 AM, AI Rumman <rummandba(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> Thanks. I missed to add the trigger.
> Now I added it, but still without partition taking less time compared to
> with partition query.

Based on the different times on "Seq Scan on table2", it looks like
one query has better caching than the other.

Did you try running the queries in alternating order, to average out
caching effects?

Could you run the "explain (analyze, buffers)" on those to get a
better picture of the buffer effects?

Cheers,

Jeff

In response to

pgsql-performance by date

Next:From: Tom LaneDate: 2012-07-25 14:56:20
Subject: Re: transactions start time
Previous:From: Jan OttoDate: 2012-07-25 14:42:24
Subject: Re: Why do I need more time with partition table?

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