From: | Toby Corkindale <toby(dot)corkindale(at)strategicdata(dot)com(dot)au> |
---|---|
To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
Cc: | pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: Bug? Query plans / EXPLAIN using gigabytes of memory |
Date: | 2012-04-26 07:19:43 |
Message-ID: | 4F98F70F.3090002@strategicdata.com.au |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-general |
On 26/04/12 17:16, Toby Corkindale wrote:
> On 26/04/12 16:58, Tom Lane wrote:
>> Toby Corkindale<toby(dot)corkindale(at)strategicdata(dot)com(dot)au> writes:
>>> On 26/04/12 15:30, Tom Lane wrote:
>>>> Hm, is the update target an inheritance tree?
>>
>>> The target is the parent table of a bunch of partitions.
>>
>> How many would "a bunch" be, exactly? I'm fairly sure that the complex
>> view would get re-planned for each target table ...
>
> The table being updated (line) has 57 child tables.
Although we are specifying a value for the column which they are
partitioned on.
ie.
CREATE TABLE line (file_id, lineno, status,
primary key (file_id, lineno));
CREATE TABLE line_1 ( CHECK (file_id=1) ) INHERITS (line);
CREATE TABLE line_2 ( CHECK (file_id=2) ) INHERITS (line);
UPDATE line SET status = something
FROM complex_view cv
WHERE cv.file_id = 2 AND line.file_id=2;
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Toby Corkindale | 2012-04-26 08:02:54 | Re: Bug? Query plans / EXPLAIN using gigabytes of memory |
Previous Message | Toby Corkindale | 2012-04-26 07:16:45 | Re: Bug? Query plans / EXPLAIN using gigabytes of memory |