| From: | Neil Conway <neilc(at)samurai(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
| Cc: | pgsql-patches(at)postgresql(dot)org, pgsql-docs(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: [PATCHES] Partitioning docs |
| Date: | 2005-11-02 23:57:39 |
| Message-ID: | 1130975859.6884.54.camel@localhost.localdomain |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-docs pgsql-patches |
On Wed, 2005-02-11 at 19:55 +0000, Simon Riggs wrote:
> Trying to identify which bit of advice you refer to.... I put some
> comments in based upon feedback from the beta on specific queries that
> were not optimised the same as non-inherited tables.
ISTM that query optimization *always* works differently for inherited
versus non-inherited tables, so there are a wide variety of queries you
could describe like that.
The other problem is the documentation is sufficiently vague that it is
of little use, IMHO. Simply saying "query X is optimized differently"
without explaining what causes the difference, what the performance
impact is likely to be, or how to workaround the problem isn't likely to
be very helpful.
-Neil
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Mikael Carneholm | 2005-11-07 16:33:38 | Partitioning docs RFC |
| Previous Message | Simon Riggs | 2005-11-02 19:55:18 | Re: [PATCHES] Partitioning docs |
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tom Lane | 2005-11-03 00:12:44 | Re: [HACKERS] Reducing the overhead of NUMERIC data |
| Previous Message | Andrew Dunstan | 2005-11-02 23:32:31 | Re: [HACKERS] Reducing the overhead of NUMERIC data |