Re: partitioning

From: Pandurangan R S <pandurangan(dot)r(dot)s(at)gmail(dot)com>
To: Marc Cousin <mcousin(at)sigma(dot)fr>
Cc: pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: partitioning
Date: 2005-12-13 11:40:11
Message-ID: 5e744e3d0512130340r25159d86n840831eb5aa6dd65@mail.gmail.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-performance

Did you set constraint_exclusion = true in postgresql.conf file?

On 12/13/05, Marc Cousin <mcousin(at)sigma(dot)fr> wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I've been working on trying to partition a big table (I've never partitioned a
> table in any other database till now).
> Everything went ok, except one query that didn't work afterwards.
>
> I've put the partition description, indexes, etc ..., and the explain plan
> attached.
>
> The query is extremely fast without partition (index scan backards on the
> primary key)
>
> The query is : "select * from logs order by id desc limit 100;"
> id is the primary key.
>
> It is indexed on all partitions.
>
> But the explain plan does full table scan on all partitions.
>
> While I think I understand why it is doing this plan right now, is there
> something that could be done to optimize this case ? Or put a warning in the
> docs about this kind of behaviour. I guess normally someone would partition
> to get faster queries :)
>
> Anyway, I thought I should mention this, as it has been quite a surprise.
>
>
>
> ---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
> TIP 1: if posting/reading through Usenet, please send an appropriate
> subscribe-nomail command to majordomo(at)postgresql(dot)org so that your
> message can get through to the mailing list cleanly
>
>
>
>

--
Regards
Pandu

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-performance by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Pandurangan R S 2005-12-13 11:50:07 Re: partitioning
Previous Message Jim C. Nasby 2005-12-13 08:22:34 Re: Memory Leakage Problem