From: | "Luke Lonergan" <llonergan(at)greenplum(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | "Tom Lane" <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, "Simon Riggs" <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
Cc: | "bizgres-general" <bizgres-general(at)pgfoundry(dot)org>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: A Guide to Constraint Exclusion (Partitioning) |
Date: | 2005-07-23 04:23:58 |
Message-ID: | BF07146E.97E2%llonergan@greenplum.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Tom,
On 7/22/05 3:32 PM, "Tom Lane" <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
> but the "scan all rows" will only happen if no index is provided on
> DateKey in the child tables. Otherwise the planner will probably
> select plans like this:
>
> -> Index Scan using i1 on sales_jan_dateitemoutlet
> sales_dateitemoutlet (cost=0.00..5.98 rows=1 width=0)
Good point.
> So at the moment I'm feeling a bit dubious about the real value.
What about the need to run DML against the partition master? Partitioning
itself is a big deal to BI/DW users, and to make it really usable will
require that DML be automatically applied based on the mapping of partition
master to the partitions. Does the CE strategy help with the implementation
of automated DML?
- Luke
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Joshua D. Drake | 2005-07-23 05:04:42 | Re: [HACKERS] Enticing interns to PostgreSQL |
Previous Message | Robert Treat | 2005-07-23 04:23:38 | Re: [HACKERS] Enticing interns to PostgreSQL |