From: | Ron Johnson <ron(dot)l(dot)johnson(at)cox(dot)net> |
---|---|
To: | pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: Questions about horizontal partitioning |
Date: | 2007-01-09 13:19:27 |
Message-ID: | 45A3965F.70409@cox.net |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-general |
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
On 01/08/07 20:39, Tom Lane wrote:
> John Sales <spelunker334(at)yahoo(dot)com> writes:
>> By doing this, I'm hoping that the query optimizer is smart
>> enough to see that if a query comes in and requests only the
>> six columns (that are in the narrower table) that PostgreSQL
>> won't have to load the wider table into the buffer pool, and
>> thereby actually have to only access about 10% the amount of
>> disk that it presently does.
>
>> Is this a sound theory?
>
> No. It still has to touch the second table to confirm the
> existence of rows to join to.
But if a query /requests *only* the six columns (that are in the
narrower table)/, why will the optimizer care about the other 224
columns?
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (GNU/Linux)
iD8DBQFFo5ZfS9HxQb37XmcRAtDRAJ41kKEN1Dv1iKXosTjy6IvMZKGccACfcZc9
e4pV+u0uLFisHcLu/gyuCvE=
=q44l
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Chander Ganesan | 2007-01-09 13:28:29 | Re: Questions about horizontal partitioning |
Previous Message | Alvaro Herrera | 2007-01-09 12:41:25 | Re: Index vacuum improvements in 8.2 |