Re: Question about partitioned query behavior

From: Stephen Frost
Subject: Re: Question about partitioned query behavior
Date: ,
Msg-id: 20100706202623.GM21875@tamriel.snowman.net
(view: Whole thread, Raw)
In response to: Re: Question about partitioned query behavior  (Ranga Gopalan)
Responses: Re: Question about partitioned query behavior  (Ranga Gopalan)
List: pgsql-performance

Tree view

Question about partitioned query behavior  (Ranga Gopalan, )
 Re: Question about partitioned query behavior  ("Benjamin Krajmalnik", )
 Re: Question about partitioned query behavior  (Ranga Gopalan, )
  Re: Question about partitioned query behavior  (Robert Haas, )
  Re: Question about partitioned query behavior  (Stephen Frost, )
   Re: Question about partitioned query behavior  (Ranga Gopalan, )

Ranga,

* Ranga Gopalan () wrote:
> It seems that this is an issue faced by others as well - Please see this link:
http://stackoverflow.com/questions/2236776/efficient-querying-of-multi-partition-postgres-table
>
> Is this a known bug? Is this something that someone is working on or is there a known work around?

Actually, if you look at that, the problem the original poster had was
that they didn't have constraint_exclusion turned on.  Then they were
complaining about having the (empty) master table and the needed
partition included (which, really, shouldn't be that big a deal).

Did you look at what the other reply suggested?  Do you have
constraint_exclusion = 'on' in your postgresql.conf?

    Thanks,

        Stephen

Attachment

pgsql-performance by date:

From: Richard Yen
Date:
Subject: WAL partition overloaded--by autovacuum?
From: Scott Marlowe
Date:
Subject: Re: WAL partition overloaded--by autovacuum?