Skip site navigation (1)
Skip section navigation (2)
Peripheral Links
Header And Logo
|
Site Navigation
Re: Query performance problems with partitioned tables
- From: Gregory Stark <stark(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>
- To: "Andreas Haumer" <andreas(at)xss(dot)co(dot)at>
- Cc: "Tom Lane" <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, <pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org>
- Subject: Re: Query performance problems with partitioned tables
- Date: Mon, 30 Apr 2007 20:19:16 +0100
Wait, rereading the original queries I seem to have misunderstood something. The individual parts of the partitioned tables are being accessed in timestamp order. So what's missing is some way for the optimizer to know that the resulting append results will still be in order. If it knew that all the constraints were mutually exclusive and covered ascending ranges then it could avoid doing the extra sort. Hm... -- Gregory Stark EnterpriseDB http://www.enterprisedb.com
- References:
- Query performance problems with partitioned tables
- From: Andreas Haumer
- Re: Query performance problems with partitioned tables
- From: Tom Lane
- Re: Query performance problems with partitioned tables
- From: Andreas Haumer
- Query performance problems with partitioned tables
- Prev by Date: Re: Feature Request --- was: PostgreSQL Performance Tuning
- Previous by thread: Re: Query performance problems with partitioned tables
- Next by thread: sytem log audit/reporting and psql
- Indexes: