From: | Greg Stark <gsstark(at)mit(dot)edu> |
---|---|
To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
Cc: | Greg Stark <gsstark(at)mit(dot)edu>, Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, bizgres-general(at)pgfoundry(dot)org, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: A Guide to Constraint Exclusion (Partitioning) |
Date: | 2005-07-23 18:27:24 |
Message-ID: | 874qalbcoj.fsf@stark.xeocode.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> writes:
> And this decision is made separately for each child table, so the fact that
> a seqscan might be the best bet for the target partition doesn't stop the
> planner from using the indexscan in other partitions.
That was the detail I was missing. I'm surprised because I actually tested
this before I sent the message and saw a plan like this with a single
sequential scan node despite the three child tables:
staging=> explain select * from _test where a=1;
QUERY PLAN
------------------------------------------------------
Seq Scan on _test (cost=0.00..22.50 rows=5 width=4)
Filter: (a = 1)
(2 rows)
[This is on 7.4, maybe the 8.0 plans are more explicit though I don't recall
any mention of changes in that area]
--
greg
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Robert Treat | 2005-07-23 18:27:51 | Re: [HACKERS] Enticing interns to PostgreSQL |
Previous Message | Joshua D. Drake | 2005-07-23 18:19:26 | Re: [HACKERS] Enticing interns to PostgreSQL |