| From: | Michael Paquier <michael(dot)paquier(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Ashutosh Bapat <ashutosh(dot)bapat(at)enterprisedb(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Jeevan Chalke <jeevan(dot)chalke(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: [HACKERS] Constraint exclusion for partitioned tables |
| Date: | 2017-12-01 05:21:09 |
| Message-ID: | CAB7nPqRSbnyZtaRDWQH9JB-GAcERYO6jpVF0QD-pGsq92o1h-A@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Wed, Sep 13, 2017 at 4:07 PM, Ashutosh Bapat
<ashutosh(dot)bapat(at)enterprisedb(dot)com> wrote:
> For a partitioned table, this patch saves the time to run constraint
> exclusion on all the partitions if constraint exclusion succeeds on
> the partitioned table. If constraint exclusion fails, we have wasted
> CPU cycles on one run of constraint exclusion. The difference between
> the time spent in the two scenarios increases with the number of
> partitions. Practically, users will have a handful partitions rather
> than a couple and thus running overhead of running constraint
> exclusion on partitioned table would be justified given the time it
> will save when CE succeeds.
Moved patch to next CF.
--
Michael
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Michael Paquier | 2017-12-01 05:25:19 | Re: [HACKERS] Fix performance degradation of contended LWLock on NUMA |
| Previous Message | Michael Paquier | 2017-12-01 05:19:09 | Re: [HACKERS] GUC for cleanup indexes threshold. |