Re: TB-sized databases

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: Michael Stone <mstone+postgres(at)mathom(dot)us>
Cc: pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: TB-sized databases
Date: 2007-12-06 16:13:18
Message-ID: 15753.1196957598@sss.pgh.pa.us
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-performance

Michael Stone <mstone+postgres(at)mathom(dot)us> writes:
> OTOH, the planner can really screw up queries on really large databases.
> IIRC, the planner can use things like unique constraints to get some
> idea, e.g., of how many rows will result from a join. Unfortunately,
> the planner can't apply those techniques to certain constructs common in
> really large db's (e.g., partitioned tables--how do you do a unique
> constraint on a partitioned table?) I've got some queries that the
> planner thinks will return on the order of 10^30 rows for that sort of
> reason. In practice, the query may return 10^3 rows, and the difference
> between the seq scan and the index scan is the difference between a
> query that takes a few seconds and a query that I will never run to
> completion. I know the goal would be to make the planner understand
> those queries better,

Indeed, and if you've got examples where it's that far off, you should
report them.

regards, tom lane

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-performance by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Matthew 2007-12-06 17:46:35 Re: TB-sized databases
Previous Message Michael Stone 2007-12-06 15:42:14 Re: TB-sized databases