Re: Performance issue after creating partitions

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: Teja Jakkidi <teja(dot)jakkidi05(at)gmail(dot)com>
Cc: Doug Reynolds <mav(at)wastegate(dot)net>, gogala(dot)mladen(at)gmail(dot)com, pgsql-admin <pgsql-admin(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: Performance issue after creating partitions
Date: 2022-08-30 21:40:37
Message-ID: 3757070.1661895637@sss.pgh.pa.us
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-admin

Teja Jakkidi <teja(dot)jakkidi05(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
> Anyone ever encountered the below situation as what I am noticing with partitions?

You haven't shown us your query, so any answer would be blind speculation.

However, in the spirit of blind speculation, I'm wondering if you're
expecting those range constraints to propagate across a join. They
won't; you'd need to duplicate the conditions for the other table.

That is, if you have WHERE+JOIN/ON conditions amounting to

WHERE a.a = b.b AND b.b = constant

the planner is able to derive "a.a = constant" on the assumption of
transitivity, and use that to constrain the scan of table a (ie,
use an index, reject partitions at plan time, etc). But no such
deduction happens for

WHERE a.a = b.b AND b.b >= constant

If you want a constrained scan of a, you need to write it out:

WHERE a.a = b.b AND b.b >= constant AND a.a >= constant

regards, tom lane

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-admin by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Bruce Momjian 2022-08-31 02:08:51 Re: Adding more detail to pg_upgrade documentation
Previous Message Teja Jakkidi 2022-08-30 21:21:50 Re: Performance issue after creating partitions