Re: Why is plan (and performance) different on partitioned table?

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: "Mark Liberman" <mliberman(at)mixedsignals(dot)com>
Cc: pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: Why is plan (and performance) different on partitioned table?
Date: 2006-05-02 02:59:16
Message-ID: 22530.1146538756@sss.pgh.pa.us
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-performance

"Mark Liberman" <mliberman(at)mixedsignals(dot)com> writes:
> I have recently implemented table partitioning in our postgres 8.1 db. =
> Upon analyzing query performance, I have realized that, even when only a =
> single one of the "partitions" has to be scanned, the plan is =
> drastically different, and performs much worse, when I query against the =
> master table (uses merge join), vs. a direct query against the partition =
> directly (uses a hash join). The majority of our queries only access a =
> single partition.

Joins against partitioned tables suck in 8.1 :-(. There is code in CVS
HEAD to improve this, but it didn't get done in time for 8.1.

regards, tom lane

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-performance by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Tom Lane 2006-05-02 04:44:16 Re: Why is plan (and performance) different on partitioned table?
Previous Message Mark Liberman 2006-05-02 01:37:03 Why is plan (and performance) different on partitioned table?