Re: Planning time of Generic plan for a table partitioned into a lot

From: Amit Langote <Langote_Amit_f8(at)lab(dot)ntt(dot)co(dot)jp>
To: "Kato, Sho" <kato-sho(at)jp(dot)fujitsu(dot)com>, "pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org>
Cc: David Rowley <dgrowleyml(at)gmail(dot)com>
Subject: Re: Planning time of Generic plan for a table partitioned into a lot
Date: 2018-11-28 05:52:05
Message-ID: ca738858-a541-615f-eb87-ad3fd427192c@lab.ntt.co.jp
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On 2018/11/28 13:46, Amit Langote wrote:
> It's cheaper than using a cached generic plan (without re-planning),
> because the latter has to pay the cost of AcquireExecutorLocks which takes
> longer as the number of partitions increases. Perhaps something to try
> fix fixing too. Not planning should cost less than planning! :)

Ah, I see that David has already thought about this issue.

(last paragraph of this email)
https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/CAKJS1f-ibmyn1W_UsdSmygjKOL6YgPyX0Mz54V_iD0HWWL_h%3Dg%40mail.gmail.com

Thanks,
Amit

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Kyotaro HORIGUCHI 2018-11-28 06:02:26 Re: Minor typo
Previous Message Tom Lane 2018-11-28 05:47:14 Re: "pg_ctl: the PID file ... is empty" at end of make check