| From: | Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us> | 
|---|---|
| To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> | 
| Cc: | PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> | 
| Subject: | Re: Partition key causes problem for volatile target list query | 
| Date: | 2023-01-27 00:30:26 | 
| Message-ID: | Y9MbIteE/QgyBMto@momjian.us | 
| Views: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email | 
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers | 
On Thu, Jan 26, 2023 at 07:21:16PM -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
> Well, if you looked further than the first few rows, it wouldn't be
> "always zero".  But the select from the partitioned table will read
> the first partition first, and that partition will have the rows
> with d1=0, by definition.
> 
> =# explain select * from case_test2 limit 10;
>                                         QUERY PLAN                              
>            
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> -----------
>  Limit  (cost=0.00..0.19 rows=10 width=8)
>    ->  Append  (cost=0.00..1987.90 rows=102260 width=8)
>          ->  Seq Scan on case_test2_0 case_test2_1  (cost=0.00..478.84 rows=3318
> 4 width=8)
>          ->  Seq Scan on case_test2_1 case_test2_2  (cost=0.00..480.86 rows=3328
> 6 width=8)
>          ->  Seq Scan on case_test2_2 case_test2_3  (cost=0.00..484.30 rows=3353
> 0 width=8)
>          ->  Seq Scan on case_test2_3 case_test2_4  (cost=0.00..32.60 rows=2260 
> width=8)
> (6 rows)
> 
> The result appears sorted by d1, but that's an implementation artifact.
Wow, thanks.  Not sure how I missed something so obvious.  I just saw it
myself by generating only 10 rows and noticing the numbers were always
increasing.
-- 
  Bruce Momjian  <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us>        https://momjian.us
  EDB                                      https://enterprisedb.com
Embrace your flaws.  They make you human, rather than perfect,
which you will never be.
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Michael Paquier | 2023-01-27 00:30:37 | Re: Something is wrong with wal_compression | 
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2023-01-27 00:23:04 | Re: Something is wrong with wal_compression |