Re: inheritance, and plans

From: Grzegorz Jaśkiewicz <gryzman(at)gmail(dot)com>
To: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
Cc: pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: inheritance, and plans
Date: 2009-02-07 10:59:47
Message-ID: 2f4958ff0902070259x2954ed78ob5ac746b14ae6c21@mail.gmail.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-performance

On Fri, Feb 6, 2009 at 9:50 PM, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
> The UNION arms have to all be the same data type in order to have
> restrictions pushed down through the UNION. You did not show us
> the table declarations for your first example, but I bet that updateid
> isn't the same type in both. (And yes, a domain is different from its
> underlying type for this purpose.)
I think you're right. The domain's in both cases (updateid and uri)
are bigints default nextval('something') not null;

and the r.history table's ones are just bigints not null. Same
underlying type, but not a domain. I'll try to alter it to domain
type, and see.

thanks.

--
GJ

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-performance by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Grzegorz Jaśkiewicz 2009-02-07 11:03:17 Re: inheritance, and plans
Previous Message Thomas Finneid 2009-02-07 09:27:34 Re: explanation of some configs