| From: | "Joshua D(dot) Drake" <jd(at)commandprompt(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us>, Greg Smith <gsmith(at)gregsmith(dot)com>, Gregory Stark <stark(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>, Josh Berkus <josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: Do we still need constraint_exclusion? |
| Date: | 2009-01-07 17:35:24 |
| Message-ID: | 1231349724.12947.42.camel@jd-laptop.pragmaticzealot.org |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Wed, 2009-01-07 at 12:26 -0500, Robert Haas wrote:
> > ~ 10% slowdown on trivial queries will get noticed.
> > I just thought of a possible compromise though: maybe we could invent an
> > intermediate constraint_exclusion setting that makes the checks only for
> > inheritance-child tables. This would avoid the overhead for simple
> > queries and still get the benefit for most of the cases where it's
> > actually useful. I'm not sure how hard this'd be to shoehorn into the
> > planner, but if it's doable it might satisfy both camps.
I can buy into this.
Joshua D. Drake
>
> +1
>
> ...Robert
>
--
PostgreSQL
Consulting, Development, Support, Training
503-667-4564 - http://www.commandprompt.com/
The PostgreSQL Company, serving since 1997
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tom Lane | 2009-01-07 17:54:35 | Re: Do we still need constraint_exclusion? |
| Previous Message | Robert Haas | 2009-01-07 17:26:32 | Re: Do we still need constraint_exclusion? |