Re: Partitioned Tables and ORDER BY - Mailing list pgsql-performance

From Grzegorz Jaśkiewicz
Subject Re: Partitioned Tables and ORDER BY
Date
Msg-id 2f4958ff0910190124k2a25317btcc0db14b39712e0@mail.gmail.com
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: Partitioned Tables and ORDER BY  (Michal Szymanski <mich20061@gmail.com>)
Responses Re: Partitioned Tables and ORDER BY  (Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com>)
List pgsql-performance


On Sun, Oct 11, 2009 at 3:30 PM, Michal Szymanski <mich20061@gmail.com> wrote:
We have similar problem and now we are try to find solution. When you
execute query on partion there is no sorting - DB use index to
retrieve data and if you need let say 50 rows it reads 50 rows using
index. But when you execute on parent table query optymizer do this:

 ->  Sort  (cost=726844.88..748207.02 rows=8544855 width=37739)
(actual time=149864.868..149864.876 rows=50 loops=1)

it means 8544855 rows should be sorted and it takes long minutes.
The figures in first parenthesis are estimates, not the actual row count. 
If you think it is too low, increase statistic target for that column. 

We
have simpler situation than you and I will try to find solution
tommorow :)

Michal Szymanski
http://blog.szymanskich.net
http://techblog.freeconet.pl/

--
Sent via pgsql-performance mailing list (pgsql-performance@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-performance



--
GJ

pgsql-performance by date:

Previous
From: Robert Haas
Date:
Subject: Re: Performance with sorting and LIMIT on partitioned table
Next
From: Matthew Wakeling
Date:
Subject: Re: Issues with \copy from file