| From: | "Kato, Sho" <kato-sho(at)jp(dot)fujitsu(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | 'David Rowley' <david(dot)rowley(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
| Cc: | PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | RE: Performance of the partitioning in the large scale |
| Date: | 2018-09-28 03:08:40 |
| Message-ID: | 25C1C6B2E7BE044889E4FE8643A58BA963B259B7@G01JPEXMBKW03 |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Friday, September 28, 2018 6:03 AM, David Rowley < david(dot)rowley(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> wrote:
> I think instead of attempting to highlight other bottlenecks, it might
> be better to focus on lending a hand reviewing and testing the existing
> set of patches.
Thanks for your reply. Ok, I focus on reviewing and testing the existing set of patches.
> Unless you're running with plan_cache_mode =
> 'force_generic_plan' then the overhead of the partitioned cases likely
> includes planning too.
I'm running with plan_cache_mode = auto. I'll check cached plan is used.
Thanks,
--
Sho Kato
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Michael Paquier | 2018-09-28 03:12:59 | Re: heap_sync seems rather oblivious to partitioned tables (wal_level=minimal) |
| Previous Message | Andres Freund | 2018-09-28 03:03:58 | Re: Pluggable Storage - Andres's take |