From: | martial(dot)bizel(at)free(dot)fr |
---|---|
To: | pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Cc: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
Subject: | Re: split partitioned table across several postgres servers |
Date: | 2006-02-17 15:18:39 |
Message-ID: | 1140189519.43f5e94f69584@imp2-g19.free.fr |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-performance |
Selon Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>:
> martial(dot)bizel(at)free(dot)fr writes:
> > In fact, I don't know how to have explain plan of remote node.
>
> You send it an EXPLAIN.
Please, Could you send me what to put at end of request :
select * from dblink('my_connexion', 'EXPLAIN select * from test where
number='1' ') as ........
I want to be sure that remote test is seen as partitioned object.
thanks a lot.
>
> You can *not* use a view defined as you suggest if you want decent
> performance --- the dblink functions will fetch the entire table
> contents and the filtering will be done locally. You'll need to
> pass the WHERE conditions over to the remote servers, which more
> or less means that you have to give them to the dblink functions
> as text.
>
> regards, tom lane
>
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Martijn van Oosterhout | 2006-02-17 15:53:58 | Re: qsort again (was Re: [PERFORM] Strange Create |
Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2006-02-17 14:49:05 | Re: split partitioned table across several postgres servers |