From: | Melvin Davidson <melvin6925(at)gmail(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Jayadevan M <maymala(dot)jayadevan(at)gmail(dot)com> |
Cc: | "pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: Partitioning and constraint exclusion |
Date: | 2015-09-07 13:42:35 |
Message-ID: | CANu8FizptPVzR8TAeYsje-6jSJyNLucipuQqNTQThsf-pHduyw@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-general |
First, what is the PostgresSQL version ??????
Next, in postgresql.conf, what is the value of constraint_exclusion ?
On Mon, Sep 7, 2015 at 8:55 AM, Jayadevan M <maymala(dot)jayadevan(at)gmail(dot)com>
wrote:
> Hello ,
>
> I have a parent table and 6 child tables (partitions). The child tables
> have check constraints defined in the form
> CHECK (myuid in (123,456,..)).
> myuid is bigint, the constraints for the 6 child tables are definitely
> mutually exclusive. The number of values in the list ranges from 2-10 for 5
> of the child tables. For the 6th child table, the list is 2500+ elements.
> When I try explain/explain analyze for even a simple query like
>
> select * from parent where myuid in (123,456,789)
>
> the child table with 2500+ elements gets always scanned. I have an index
> on the column and that does get used. But why doesn't the planner just use
> constraint exclusion and not go for the index scan? Anyone faced a similar
> issue?
>
> Thanks,
> Jayadevan
>
--
*Melvin Davidson*
I reserve the right to fantasize. Whether or not you
wish to share my fantasy is entirely up to you.
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | FarjadFarid(ChkNet) | 2015-09-07 14:14:45 | Re: table dependencies |
Previous Message | Melvin Davidson | 2015-09-07 13:37:48 | Re: table dependencies |