From: | Jov <amutu(at)amutu(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Robert Nix <robert(at)urban4m(dot)com> |
Cc: | "pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: How can i monitor exactly what (partition) tables are accessed by a query? |
Date: | 2014-09-19 01:22:24 |
Message-ID: | CADyrUxMQYLuNBkYxQTYxm=9CHa48Uy6x2ZhY7pK3nrbNpr971g@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-general |
Jov
blog: http:amutu.com/blog <http://amutu.com/blog>
2014-09-19 2:44 GMT+08:00 Robert Nix <robert(at)urban4m(dot)com>:
> I'm experiencing a problem with queries apparently not using the check
> constraints of my partition tables (tried constraint_exclusion =partition
> and =on with same results) and explain isn't sufficient to diagnose the
> issue because the value for the check constraint in the query comes from a
> join condition.
>
> What i need is a way to see exactly what tables are actually accessed by
> the query.
>
> When i hardcode the check constraint column's value into the query, the
> explain plan reports what i expect it should be executing but the
> performance of the query indicates that the partitions are not actually
> being used when the check constraint value is obtained from a join
> condition.
>
How did you find the partitions are not actually being used?
You can try to use explain analyze to see the acutally running paln.
>
> Any and all help appreciated.
> --
> .nix
>
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | David G Johnston | 2014-09-19 01:39:12 | Re: How can i monitor exactly what (partition) tables are accessed by a query? |
Previous Message | John R Pierce | 2014-09-19 01:17:26 | Re: How to run a second instance on the same server? |