From: | PostgreSQL - Hans-Jürgen Schönig <postgres(at)cybertec(dot)at> |
---|---|
To: | Stephen Frost <sfrost(at)snowman(dot)net> |
Cc: | pgsql-hackers Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: plan time of MASSIVE partitioning ... |
Date: | 2010-09-03 12:16:21 |
Message-ID: | F2404401-2E8D-4BCE-A932-29D520489B0A@cybertec.at |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Sep 3, 2010, at 2:04 PM, Stephen Frost wrote:
> * PostgreSQL - Hans-Jürgen Schönig (postgres(at)cybertec(dot)at) wrote:
>> did anybody think of a solution to this problem.
>> or more precisely: can there be a solution to this problem?
>
> Please post to the correct list (-performance) and provide information
> like PG version, postgresql.conf, the actual table definition, the
> resulting query plan, etc, etc...
>
> Thanks,
>
> Stephen
hello stephen,
this seems like more a developer question to me than a pre performance one.
it is not related to the table structure at all - it is basically an issue with incredibly large inheritance lists.
it applies to postgres 9 and most likely to everything before.
postgresql.conf is not relevant at all at this point.
the plan is pretty fine.
the question is rather: does anybody see a chance to handle such lists more efficiently inside postgres?
also, it is not the point if my data structure is sane or not. it is really more generic - namely a shortcut for this case inside the planing process.
many thanks,
hans
--
Cybertec Schönig & Schönig GmbH
Gröhrmühlgasse 26
A-2700 Wiener Neustadt, Austria
Web: http://www.postgresql-support.de
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Greg Stark | 2010-09-03 12:16:25 | Re: Streaming a base backup from master |
Previous Message | Stephen Frost | 2010-09-03 12:04:42 | Re: plan time of MASSIVE partitioning ... |