Re: A Guide to Constraint Exclusion (Partitioning)

From: "Luke Lonergan" <llonergan(at)greenplum(dot)com>
To: "Tom Lane" <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, "Simon Riggs" <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>
Cc: "bizgres-general" <bizgres-general(at)pgfoundry(dot)org>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: A Guide to Constraint Exclusion (Partitioning)
Date: 2005-07-23 04:23:58
Message-ID: BF07146E.97E2%llonergan@greenplum.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Tom,

On 7/22/05 3:32 PM, "Tom Lane" <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
> but the "scan all rows" will only happen if no index is provided on
> DateKey in the child tables. Otherwise the planner will probably
> select plans like this:
>
> -> Index Scan using i1 on sales_jan_dateitemoutlet
> sales_dateitemoutlet (cost=0.00..5.98 rows=1 width=0)

Good point.

> So at the moment I'm feeling a bit dubious about the real value.

What about the need to run DML against the partition master? Partitioning
itself is a big deal to BI/DW users, and to make it really usable will
require that DML be automatically applied based on the mapping of partition
master to the partitions. Does the CE strategy help with the implementation
of automated DML?

- Luke

In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Joshua D. Drake 2005-07-23 05:04:42 Re: [HACKERS] Enticing interns to PostgreSQL
Previous Message Robert Treat 2005-07-23 04:23:38 Re: [HACKERS] Enticing interns to PostgreSQL