Re: plan time of MASSIVE partitioning ...

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: Leonardo Francalanci <m_lists(at)yahoo(dot)it>
Cc: 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 17:15:55
Message-ID: 3943.1288372555@sss.pgh.pa.us
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

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
185458 19.5456 find_all_inheritors
53064 5.5925 SearchCatCache
33864 3.5690 pg_strtok
26301 2.7719 hash_search_with_hash_value
22577 2.3794 AllocSetAlloc
6696 0.7057 MemoryContextAllocZeroAligned
6250 0.6587 expression_tree_walker
5141 0.5418 LockReleaseAll
4779 0.5037 get_relation_info
4506 0.4749 MemoryContextAlloc
4467 0.4708 expression_tree_mutator
4136 0.4359 pgstat_initstats
3914 0.4125 relation_excluded_by_constraints

get_tabstat_entry and find_all_inheritors are both obviously O(N^2) in
the number of tables they have to deal with. However, the constant
factors are small enough that you need a heck of a lot of tables
before they become significant consumers of runtime. I'm not convinced
that we should be optimizing for 9000-child-table cases.

It'd be worth fixing these if we can do it without either introducing a
lot of complexity, or slowing things down for typical cases that have
only a few tables. Offhand not sure about how to do either.

regards, tom lane

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Robert Haas 2010-10-29 17:16:44 Re: plan time of MASSIVE partitioning ...
Previous Message Tom Lane 2010-10-29 16:53:30 Re: plan time of MASSIVE partitioning ...