Re: On partitioning

From: Greg Stark <stark(at)mit(dot)edu>
To: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
Cc: Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Pg Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: On partitioning
Date: 2014-09-01 16:07:28
Message-ID: CAM-w4HNd6AwkWNRjN4FynCzV2OGe95F6VuApCAR6b0MRbuNnxw@mail.gmail.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On Mon, Sep 1, 2014 at 4:59 PM, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
> The "push into executor" idea I was alluding to is that we might invent
> plan constructs like a ModifyTable node that applies to a whole
> inheritance^H^H^Hpartitioning tree and leaves the tuple routing to be
> done at runtime. You're not going to get a plan structure like that
> if the planner is building a separate plan subtree for each partition.

Well my message was assuming that in that case it would only consider
the partitioned indexes. It would only consider the isolated indexes
if the planner was able to identify a specific partition. That's
probably the only type of query where such indexes are likely to be
useful.

--
greg

In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Andres Freund 2014-09-01 16:09:27 Re: On partitioning
Previous Message Andres Freund 2014-09-01 16:02:48 Re: On partitioning