Re: Constraint Exclusion (Partitioning)

From: Jochem van Dieten <jochemd(at)gmail(dot)com>
To: Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>
Cc: pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: Constraint Exclusion (Partitioning)
Date: 2005-07-05 20:42:41
Message-ID: f96a9b830507051342aa70c8c@mail.gmail.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers pgsql-patches

I can't believe I am the first one to respond to this :)

On 6/27/05, Simon Riggs wrote:
> On Mon, 2005-06-27 at 01:41 +0100, Simon Riggs wrote:
>>
>> The main purpose of this feature is to reduce access time against large
>> tables that have been split into partitions by using the PostgreSQL
>> inheritance facility. It has been written in a very generic way allowing
>> a whole range of applications.
>>
>> If
>> a) a table is part of an inheritance set
>> b) the table has check constraints defined upon it
>> c) enable_constraint_exclusion = true

>> Main questions:
>> 2. Should this feature be available for all queries or just inherited
>> relations?

I think this feature would be useful as well for home-brewn
partitioning implementations based on a view of unions instead of
inheritance.
But I have to admit to having some doubts about the tradeoff in CPU
cycles for this very specific case: if somebody wants to benefit from
this new feature he has to upgrade to 8.2 anyway and changing from a
view to inheritance is not that drastic.

Jochem

In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Jim C. Nasby 2005-07-05 22:13:40 Re: [PATCHES] HEAD doesn't cope with libraries in non-default
Previous Message Marko Kreen 2005-07-05 20:27:19 Re: pgcrypto 3des failure, OpenSSL 0.9.8, Solaris 9/sparc

Browse pgsql-patches by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Jim C. Nasby 2005-07-05 22:13:40 Re: [PATCHES] HEAD doesn't cope with libraries in non-default
Previous Message Alvaro Herrera 2005-07-05 20:40:19 Re: Dependencies on shared objects