| From: | Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net> |
|---|---|
| To: | rudi <rudolone(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: High CPU usage after partitioning |
| Date: | 2013-01-22 14:46:24 |
| Message-ID: | 50FEA640.10201@dunslane.net |
| Views: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-performance |
On 01/22/2013 09:21 AM, rudi wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 22, 2013 at 3:04 PM, Merlin Moncure <mmoncure(at)gmail(dot)com
> <mailto:mmoncure(at)gmail(dot)com>> wrote:
>
> let's see the query -- it's probably written in such a way so as to
> not be able to be optimized through CE.
>
>
> The query is pretty simple and standard, the behaviour (and the plan)
> is totally different when it comes to a partitioned table.
>
> Partioned table query => explain analyze SELECT "sb_logs".* FROM
> "sb_logs" WHERE (device_id = 901 AND date_taken = (SELECT
> MAX(date_taken) FROM sb_logs WHERE device_id = 901));
>
And there you have it. Constraint exclusion does not work in cases like
this. It only works with static expressions (such as a literal date in
this case).
cheers
andrew
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | rudi | 2013-01-22 15:08:09 | Re: High CPU usage after partitioning |
| Previous Message | rudi | 2013-01-22 14:21:56 | Re: High CPU usage after partitioning |