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 17:31:32
Message-ID: 4207.1288373492@sss.pgh.pa.us
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Leonardo Francalanci <m_lists(at)yahoo(dot)it> writes:
> BTW can someone explain to me which are the cases where the
> patch actually helps?

Cases with lots of irrelevant indexes. Zoltan's example had 4 indexes
per child table, only one of which was relevant to the query. In your
test case there are no irrelevant indexes, which is why the runtime
didn't change.

regards, tom lane

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Tom Lane 2010-10-29 17:44:14 Re: plan time of MASSIVE partitioning ...
Previous Message Leonardo Francalanci 2010-10-29 17:22:12 Re: plan time of MASSIVE partitioning ...