From: | Gregory Stark <stark(at)enterprisedb(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | "Alex Vinogradovs" <AVinogradovs(at)Clearpathnet(dot)com> |
Cc: | "pgsql-general" <pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: Another question about partitioning |
Date: | 2007-11-28 01:32:27 |
Message-ID: | 874pf79mtw.fsf@oxford.xeocode.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-general |
"Alex Vinogradovs" <AVinogradovs(at)Clearpathnet(dot)com> writes:
> Hello all,
>
>
> I have a table which is partitioned by range into 10 pieces with
> constraint exceptions. Constraint exceptions is enabled in server
> configuration too. For some reason, queries to the master table
> are still slower than direct queries against partitions. Is there
> any real reason for that, or I should look into misconfiguration ?
Well you have to look at the actual plans. Having to combine multiple
partitions does have some cost to it and does interfere somewhat in the
planner's ability to optimize plans so it might not be a win on individual
queries if they were not doing big scans of unnecessary data previously.
You might also consider using partial indexes instead of partitioning if your
goal is just optimizing queries. The big advantage of partitioning is being
able to add and drop entire partitions effectively instantaneously.
--
Gregory Stark
EnterpriseDB http://www.enterprisedb.com
Ask me about EnterpriseDB's PostGIS support!
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Greg Smith | 2007-11-28 01:35:30 | Re: Linux v.s. Mac OS-X Performance |
Previous Message | Ron Johnson | 2007-11-28 01:10:55 | Re: Linux v.s. Mac OS-X Performance |