Re: misbehaving planer?

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: Darcy Buskermolen <darcyb(at)commandprompt(dot)com>
Cc: pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: misbehaving planer?
Date: 2006-10-20 15:26:06
Message-ID: 15619.1161357966@sss.pgh.pa.us
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Darcy Buskermolen <darcyb(at)commandprompt(dot)com> writes:
> I have a setup in which a table has been partitioned into 30 partitions on
> type (1 -30), however no matter what I do i can't make the planner try to use
> constraint exclusion on it.

Do you have constraint_exclusion turned on? What are the check
constraints on the other children of tbl_ps? This example doesn't
really show whether the planner is misbehaving or not.

The multiple-partial-index setup on tbl_ps_type_1 looks pretty silly to
me... it seems unlikely to buy anything except extra planning overhead.

regards, tom lane

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Zeugswetter Andreas ADI SD 2006-10-20 15:37:48 Re: [SPAM?] Re: Asynchronous I/O Support
Previous Message Zeugswetter Andreas ADI SD 2006-10-20 15:22:33 Re: misbehaving planer?