From: | "Zeugswetter Andreas SB SD" <ZeugswetterA(at)spardat(dot)at> |
---|---|
To: | "Greg Stark" <gsstark(at)mit(dot)edu>, <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: Tablespaces |
Date: | 2004-06-11 10:02:40 |
Message-ID: | 46C15C39FEB2C44BA555E356FBCD6FA40184D0FB@m0114.s-mxs.net |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
> > With the rule system and two underlying tables one could make it work by
> > hand I think.
>
> The rule system could be used to do this, but there was some discussion of
> using inherited tables to handle it. However neither handles the really hard
> part of detecting queries that use only a part of the table and taking that
> into account in generating the plan.
I think the consensus should be to add smarts to the planner to include
static constraint information to reduce table access.
e.g if you have a constraint "acol integer, check acol < 5"
and you have a query with a "where acol = 10" you could reduce that
to "where false". This would help in all sorts of situations not only
partitioned/inherited tables. I am not sure what the runtime cost of
such an inclusion would be, so maybe it needs smarts to only try in certain
cases ?
Andreas
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Dave Cramer | 2004-06-11 11:51:04 | Re: Postgresql JDBC-Driver |
Previous Message | Andreas Pflug | 2004-06-11 09:41:11 | Re: [pgsql-hackers-win32] Tablespaces |