Re: [HACKERS] Constraint exclusion for partitioned tables - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Robert Haas
Subject Re: [HACKERS] Constraint exclusion for partitioned tables
Date
Msg-id CA+TgmoZEE_-kpf-HpVP7_vhd7JPMJtZYxj6vphc7eoTcmJDAwA@mail.gmail.com
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: [HACKERS] Constraint exclusion for partitioned tables  (Jeevan Chalke <jeevan.chalke@enterprisedb.com>)
Responses Re: [HACKERS] Constraint exclusion for partitioned tables  (Jeevan Chalke <jeevan.chalke@enterprisedb.com>)
List pgsql-hackers
On Tue, Sep 12, 2017 at 7:08 AM, Jeevan Chalke
<jeevan.chalke@enterprisedb.com> wrote:
> This patch clearly improves the planning time with given conditions.
>
> To verify that, I have created a table like:
> create table foo(a int, b int check (b > 100), c text) partition by
> range(a);
> And then used following query to get planning time:
> select * from foo where b < 100;
>
> And on my local setup, I have observed that,
> For 16 partitions, planning time was 0.234692 ms, which reduced to 0.112948
> ms with this patch.
> For 128 partitions, planning time was 1.62305 ms, which reduced to 0.654252
> ms with this patch.
> For 1024 partitions, planning time was 18.720993 ms, which reduced to
> 9.667395 ms with this patch.
>
> This clearly shows an improvement in planning time.

What about the extra cost of checking the parent when it doesn't help?In that case we will have some loss.

I'm inclined to think that's OK, but it's something to think about.

-- 
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company


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

pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Peter Eisentraut
Date:
Subject: Re: [JDBC] [HACKERS] Channel binding support for SCRAM-SHA-256
Next
From: Chris Travers
Date:
Subject: [HACKERS] pg_rewind proposed scope and interface changes