From: | David Rowley <david(dot)rowley(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Tomas Vondra <tomas(dot)vondra(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
Cc: | PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: Delay locking partitions during query execution |
Date: | 2019-01-04 22:05:40 |
Message-ID: | CAKJS1f9SHTxYb0n5YtOE8H-gU3H3ZWRajNHppN+trmvgZxNRwg@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Sat, 5 Jan 2019 at 03:12, Tomas Vondra <tomas(dot)vondra(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> wrote:
> >>
> >> partitions 0 100 1000 10000
> >> --------------------------------------------
> >> master 19 1590 2090 128
> >> patched 18 1780 6820 1130
> >>
> >> So, that's nice. I wonder why the throughput drops so fast between 1k
> >> and 10k partitions, but I'll look into that later.
> >
> > Those look strange. Why is it so slow with the non-partitioned case?
> > I'd have expected that to be the fastest result.
> >
>
> Because there are 1M rows in the table, and it's doing a seqscan.
Of course. My test did the same, but I didn't consider that because I
had so few rows per partition. Likely just adding an index would have
it make more sense.
--
David Rowley http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training & Services
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Mitar | 2019-01-04 22:10:16 | Re: Feature: triggers on materialized views |
Previous Message | Dmitry Molotkov | 2019-01-04 21:46:54 | Re: BUG #15446: Crash on ALTER TABLE |