From: | PostgreSQL - Hans-Jürgen Schönig <postgres(at)cybertec(dot)at> |
---|---|
To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
Cc: | pgsql-hackers Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: plan time of MASSIVE partitioning ... |
Date: | 2010-09-03 14:46:26 |
Message-ID: | BA9ED250-AB20-4AFC-9905-80F43E210C80@cybertec.at |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Sep 3, 2010, at 4:40 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
> =?iso-8859-1?Q?PostgreSQL_-_Hans-J=FCrgen_Sch=F6nig?= <postgres(at)cybertec(dot)at> writes:
>> imagine a system with, say, 1000 partitions (heavily indexed) or so. the time taken by the planner is already fairly heavy in this case.
>
> As the fine manual points out, the current scheme for managing
> partitioned tables isn't intended to scale past a few dozen partitions.
>
> I think we'll be able to do better when we have an explicit
> representation of partitioning, since then the planner won't
> have to expend large amounts of effort reverse-engineering knowledge
> about how an inheritance tree is partitioned. Before that happens,
> it's not really worth the trouble to worry about such cases.
>
> regards, tom lane
>
thank you ... - the manual is clear here but we wanted to see if there is some reasonably low hanging fruit to get around this.
it is no solution but at least a clear statement ...
many thanks,
hans
--
Cybertec Schönig & Schönig GmbH
Gröhrmühlgasse 26
A-2700 Wiener Neustadt, Austria
Web: http://www.postgresql-support.de
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Tom Lane | 2010-09-03 14:51:37 | Re: Interruptible sleeps (was Re: CommitFest 2009-07: Yay, Kevin! Thanks, reviewers!) |
Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2010-09-03 14:40:54 | Re: plan time of MASSIVE partitioning ... |