| From: | John R Pierce <pierce(at)hogranch(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: Inheritance efficiency |
| Date: | 2010-05-01 03:33:09 |
| Message-ID: | 4BDBA0F5.4040608@hogranch.com |
| Views: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-general |
Greg Smith wrote:
> Enterprise grade doesn't mean anything. Partitioning designs that
> require thousands of child tables to work right are fundamentally
> misdesigned anyway, so there is no reason for any of the contributors
> to the project to work on improving support for them. There are far
> too many obvious improvements that could be made to PostgreSQL, ones
> that will benefit vastly more people, to divert resources toward
> something you shouldn't be dong anyway like that.
>
my sql developer, who's been doing oracle for 15+ years, says postgres'
partitioning is flawed from his perspective because if you have a
prepared statement like..
SELECT fields FROM partitioned_table WHERE primarykey = $1;
it doesn't optimize this very well and ends up looking at all the
sub-table indicies. ir you instead execute the statement
SELECT fields FROM parritioned_table WHERE primarykey = constant;
he says the planner will go straight to the correct partition.
i haven't confirmed this for myself.
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Alvaro Herrera | 2010-05-01 03:50:52 | Re: Nuevo sobre PGday Latinoamericano 2011... |
| Previous Message | Greg Smith | 2010-05-01 03:08:22 | Re: Inheritance efficiency |