| From: | Justin Pryzby <pryzby(at)telsasoft(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | David Rowley <david(dot)rowley(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Amit Langote <Langote_Amit_f8(at)lab(dot)ntt(dot)co(dot)jp>, "Imai, Yoshikazu" <imai(dot)yoshikazu(at)jp(dot)fujitsu(dot)com>, Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: speeding up planning with partitions |
| Date: | 2019-01-07 14:13:32 |
| Message-ID: | 20190107141332.GT25379@telsasoft.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Mon, Jan 07, 2019 at 09:40:50PM +1300, David Rowley wrote:
> On Fri, 4 Jan 2019 at 04:39, Justin Pryzby <pryzby(at)telsasoft(dot)com> wrote:
> > Running 11dev with your v10 patch applied, this takes 2244ms with empty buffer
> > cache after postmaster restarted on a totally untuned instance (and a new
> > backend, with no cached opened files).
> >
> > I was curious why it took even 2sec, and why it did so many opens() (but not
> > 20k of them that PG11 does):
>
> It would be pretty hard to know that without seeing the query plan.
The issue was this:
> > It turns out 1050 open()s are due to historic data which is no longer being
> > loaded and therefor never converted to relkind=p (but hasn't exceeded the
> > retention interval so not yet DROPped, either).
So there's no evidence of any issue with the patch.
Justin
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | a Marath | 2019-01-07 14:18:49 | Re: BUG #15572: Misleading message reported by "Drop function operation" on DB with functions having same name |
| Previous Message | Jesper Pedersen | 2019-01-07 13:48:38 | Re: pg_upgrade: Pass -j down to vacuumdb |