Re: TB-sized databases - Mailing list pgsql-performance

From Tom Lane
Subject Re: TB-sized databases
Date
Msg-id 15753.1196957598@sss.pgh.pa.us
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: TB-sized databases  (Michael Stone <mstone+postgres@mathom.us>)
Responses Re: TB-sized databases
Re: TB-sized databases
Re: TB-sized databases
List pgsql-performance
Michael Stone <mstone+postgres@mathom.us> writes:
> OTOH, the planner can really screw up queries on really large databases.
> IIRC, the planner can use things like unique constraints to get some
> idea, e.g., of how many rows will result from a join. Unfortunately,
> the planner can't apply those techniques to certain constructs common in
> really large db's (e.g., partitioned tables--how do you do a unique
> constraint on a partitioned table?) I've got some queries that the
> planner thinks will return on the order of 10^30 rows for that sort of
> reason. In practice, the query may return 10^3 rows, and the difference
> between the seq scan and the index scan is the difference between a
> query that takes a few seconds and a query that I will never run to
> completion. I know the goal would be to make the planner understand
> those queries better,

Indeed, and if you've got examples where it's that far off, you should
report them.

            regards, tom lane

pgsql-performance by date:

Previous
From: Michael Stone
Date:
Subject: Re: TB-sized databases
Next
From: Matthew
Date:
Subject: Re: TB-sized databases