From: | Ravi Krishna <sravikrishna3(at)gmail(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
Cc: | Jan Lentfer <Jan(dot)Lentfer(at)web(dot)de>, pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: Partitioning and performance |
Date: | 2015-05-28 17:12:20 |
Message-ID: | CACER=P1sGMfxi7JtHGJgTP7E6GpVVuQ0jDvz-cfPuqY=R2KdGQ@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-general |
On Thu, May 28, 2015 at 12:50 PM, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
> Sure, because you don't have a constraint forbidding the parent from
> having a matching row, no?
As suggested by you, I included a bogus condition in the parent table
which will prevent any row addition in the parent table and made the
constraint NO INHERIT.
i run this
SET constraint_exclusion = on;
explain select * from tstesting.account where account_row_inst = 1001 ;
Append (cost=0.14..8.16 rows=1 width=832)
-> Index Scan using account_part1_pkey on account_part1
(cost=0.14..8.16 rows=1 width=832)
Index Cond: (account_row_inst = 1001)
(3 rows)
The planner shows this for the non partitioned table
Index Scan using account_pkey on account (cost=0.14..8.16 rows=1 width=832)
Index Cond: (account_row_inst = 1001)
(2 rows)
So cost wise they both look same, still when i run the sql in a loop
in large numbers, it takes rougly 1.8 to 2 times more than non
partitioned table.
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Tom Lane | 2015-05-28 17:13:10 | Re: Partitioning and performance |
Previous Message | Ravi Krishna | 2015-05-28 17:07:29 | Re: Partitioning and performance |