From: | Jayadevan M <maymala(dot)jayadevan(at)gmail(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Melvin Davidson <melvin6925(at)gmail(dot)com> |
Cc: | "pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: Partitioning and constraint exclusion |
Date: | 2015-09-08 04:20:33 |
Message-ID: | CAFS1N4g0ykYdYBVM0Fjw1uPBZy128bUco=GDmsSev2193uF62g@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-general |
On Mon, Sep 7, 2015 at 7:12 PM, Melvin Davidson <melvin6925(at)gmail(dot)com>
wrote:
> First, what is the PostgresSQL version ??????
>
9.3.6
>
> Next, in postgresql.conf, what is the value of constraint_exclusion ?
>
partition
In response to the other possible issues pointed out - the planner is
indeed *skipping the rest of the child tables* (the ones with just a few
values in the check constraint). That is why I feel the number of elements
in the check constraint on this particular child table is causing it to be
scanned. The query ends up scanning the table where the data will be found
and the table with 2500+ values in the check constraint. I may be missing
something?
I tried changing the filter from myuid in (1,2,3) to myuid = 1 or myuid = 2
or....
It did not improve the plan. One Index Cond became 3 Index Cond .
Thanks,
Jayadevan
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Craig Ringer | 2015-09-08 06:31:07 | Re: BDR global sequences in two machine failover |
Previous Message | Vick Khera | 2015-09-07 23:39:47 | Re: Partitioning and constraint exclusion |