Re: partition pruning

From: Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndQuadrant(dot)com>
To: Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>
Cc: Anj Adu <fotographs(at)gmail(dot)com>, pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: partition pruning
Date: 2010-03-08 22:39:10
Message-ID: 1268087950.10620.49.camel@ebony
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-performance

On Thu, 2010-03-04 at 17:40 -0500, Robert Haas wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 1, 2010 at 2:29 PM, Anj Adu <fotographs(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> > When I use intervals in my query e.g col1 between current_timestamp -
> > interval '10 days' and current_timestamp...the optimizer checks ALL
> > partitions whereas if I use col1 between 2 hardcoded dates..only
> > the applicable partitions are scanned.
>
> Yep. This is one example of a more general principle:
> constant-folding happens before planning, but anything more complex
> has to wait until execution time. So the plan can't take into account
> the value of current_timestamp in forming the plan.

It could, but it doesn't yet. Partition removal can take place in the
executor and this is currently targeted for 9.1.

--
Simon Riggs www.2ndQuadrant.com

In response to

Browse pgsql-performance by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Scott Carey 2010-03-08 23:50:24 Re: 10K vs 15k rpm for analytics
Previous Message Robert Haas 2010-03-08 21:56:03 Re: Estimation issue with partitioned tables