| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> | 
|---|---|
| To: | Heikki Linnakangas <heikki(dot)linnakangas(at)enterprisedb(dot)com> | 
| Cc: | Brendan Jurd <direvus(at)gmail(dot)com>, Richard Huxton <dev(at)archonet(dot)com>, Sergey Konoplev <gray(dot)ru(at)gmail(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org | 
| Subject: | Re: [GENERAL] Very slow queries w/ NOT IN preparation (seems like a bug, test case) | 
| Date: | 2008-11-12 21:09:19 | 
| Message-ID: | 20938.1226524159@sss.pgh.pa.us | 
| Views: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email | 
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-general pgsql-hackers | 
Heikki Linnakangas <heikki(dot)linnakangas(at)enterprisedb(dot)com> writes:
> Which brings to mind an interesting customer case. They are running 
> queries like "WHERE id IN (...)", where ... is a *very* long list of 
> keys, against a table that's partitioned by ranges of id. The query was 
> running slow, because while constraint exclusion was able to eliminate 
> completely useless partitions, if there was even one id in the list that 
> falls into a given partition, the partition was probed for *all* of the 
> ids, even those that belong to other partitions. Ideally, we would not 
> only prove/refute the whole "x = ANY" expression, but individual values 
> within it.
> Actually, the long list of keys was obtained by running another query 
> first. They originally had a single query with a join, but they split it 
> to two queries because constraint exclusion doesn't work at run-time..
Yeah, at some point (after we have an explicit notion of partitioning in
the system, instead of the current build-it-from-spare-parts approach)
we ought to look at managing this stuff at runtime rather than expecting
that exclusion can be proven at plan time.  In particular a plan type
that acted like an indexscan across the whole partitioned table (select
proper partition, then indexscan) would be real handy.
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Roderick A. Anderson | 2008-11-12 21:22:19 | Re: Using dblink to connect as non-superuser | 
| Previous Message | Robert Fitzpatrick | 2008-11-12 21:04:59 | Using dblink to connect as non-superuser | 
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tom Lane | 2008-11-12 21:25:44 | Re: Reducing some DDL Locks to ShareLock | 
| Previous Message | Gregory Stark | 2008-11-12 20:38:33 | Re: Block-level CRC checks |