From: | Marc Cousin <cousinmarc(at)gmail(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
Cc: | Heikki Linnakangas <heikki(dot)linnakangas(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>, pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: inheritance: planning time vs children number vs column number |
Date: | 2011-03-01 15:39:19 |
Message-ID: | 201103011639.19396.cousinmarc@gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-performance |
The Tuesday 01 March 2011 16:33:51, Tom Lane wrote :
> Marc Cousin <cousinmarc(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
> > Le mardi 01 mars 2011 07:20:19, Tom Lane a écrit :
> >> It's worth pointing out that the only reason this effect is dominating
> >> the runtime is that you don't have any statistics for these toy test
> >> tables. If you did, the cycles spent using those entries would dwarf
> >> the lookup costs, I think. So it's hard to get excited about doing
> >> anything based on this test case --- it's likely the bottleneck would be
> >> somewhere else entirely if you'd bothered to load up some data.
> >
> > Yes, for the same test case, with a bit of data in every partition and
> > statistics up to date, planning time goes from 20 seconds to 125ms for
> > the 600 children/1000 columns case. Which is of course more than
> > acceptable.
>
> [ scratches head ... ] Actually, I was expecting the runtime to go up
> not down. Maybe there's something else strange going on here.
>
> regards, tom lane
Then, what can I do to help ?
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Maciek Sakrejda | 2011-03-01 17:07:18 | Re: Two different execution plans for similar requests |
Previous Message | Merlin Moncure | 2011-03-01 15:37:00 | Re: Talking about optimizer, my long dream |