| From: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Ranga Gopalan <ranga_gopalan(at)hotmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: Question about partitioned query behavior |
| Date: | 2010-07-06 19:30:29 |
| Message-ID: | AANLkTinAWSxcnQM4hWpFLXdAE92qmkReQC6ls65PxuxR@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-performance |
On Tue, Jul 6, 2010 at 12:30 PM, Ranga Gopalan
<ranga_gopalan(at)hotmail(dot)com> wrote:
> It seems that this is an issue faced by others as well - Please see this
> link:
> http://stackoverflow.com/questions/2236776/efficient-querying-of-multi-partition-postgres-table
>
> Is this a known bug? Is this something that someone is working on or is
> there a known work around?
I think that we know this problem exists, but I'm not aware anyone is
working on fixing it. There is a "Merge Append" patch floating around
out there that I think might help with this, but AFAICS it was last
updated on July 5, 2009, and still needed some more work at that time.
Since this is an all-volunteer effort, complicated problems like this
don't always get fixed as fast as we'd like; most of us have to spend
most of our time on whatever it is that our employer pays us to do.
Of course if you're in a position to sponsor a developer there are a
number of companies that will be happy to work with you.
--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise Postgres Company
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Eliot Gable | 2010-07-06 19:42:14 | Re: Highly Efficient Custom Sorting |
| Previous Message | Robert Haas | 2010-07-06 19:21:49 | Re: Two "equivalent" WITH RECURSIVE queries, one of them slow. |