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

Re: plan time of MASSIVE partitioning ...

From: Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)commandprompt(dot)com>
To: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
Cc: Leonardo Francalanci <m_lists(at)yahoo(dot)it>, Boszormenyi Zoltan <zb(at)cybertec(dot)at>, pgsql-hackers Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: plan time of MASSIVE partitioning ...
Date: 2010-10-29 19:11:50
Message-ID: (view raw, whole thread or download thread mbox)
Lists: pgsql-hackers
Excerpts from Tom Lane's message of vie oct 29 14:15:55 -0300 2010:
> I wrote:
> > This is going to be dominated by constraint exclusion checking.
> Hmm, maybe I spoke too soon.  With 9000 child tables I get a profile
> like this:
> samples  %        symbol name
> 447433   47.1553  get_tabstat_entry

Is there a reason for keeping the pgstat info in plain lists?  We could
use dynahash there too, I think.  It would have more palloc overhead
that way, though (hmm, but perhaps that can be fixed by having a smart
"alloc" function for it, preallocating a bunch of entries instead of one
by one).

Álvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)commandprompt(dot)com>
The PostgreSQL Company - Command Prompt, Inc.
PostgreSQL Replication, Consulting, Custom Development, 24x7 support

In response to


pgsql-hackers by date

Next:From: Tom LaneDate: 2010-10-29 19:37:39
Subject: Re: plan time of MASSIVE partitioning ...
Previous:From: Alexander KorotkovDate: 2010-10-29 18:59:41
Subject: Fix for cube picksplit function

Privacy Policy | About PostgreSQL
Copyright © 1996-2017 The PostgreSQL Global Development Group