Re: Partitioning and constraint exclusion - Mailing list pgsql-general

From David G. Johnston
Subject Re: Partitioning and constraint exclusion
Date
Msg-id CAKFQuwazwaP7Rt0oyp+3qKtiuL8isaT3pWAQMWzqnnOi0yLaFw@mail.gmail.com
Whole thread Raw
In response to Partitioning and constraint exclusion  (Jayadevan M <maymala.jayadevan@gmail.com>)
Responses Re: Partitioning and constraint exclusion
Re: Partitioning and constraint exclusion
List pgsql-general
On Mon, Sep 7, 2015 at 8:55 AM, Jayadevan M <maymala.jayadevan@gmail.com> wrote:
Hello ,

I have a parent table and 6 child tables (partitions). The child tables have check constraints defined in the form
CHECK (myuid in (123,456,..)).
myuid is bigint, the constraints for the 6 child tables are definitely mutually exclusive. The number of values in the list ranges from 2-10 for 5 of the child tables. For the 6th child table, the list is 2500+ elements. When I try explain/explain analyze for even a simple query like

select * from parent where myuid in (123,456,789) 

the child table with 2500+ elements gets always scanned. I have an index on the column and that does get used. But why doesn't the planner just use constraint exclusion and not go for the index scan? Anyone faced a similar issue?


IIRC ​The planner doesn't understand​
 
​overlaps so having a definition of:

IN (1,2,3,4,5); or nearly equivalently = ANY(ARRAY[1,2,3,4,5]))​

and a request for:

IN (1,3,5) / = ANY(ARRAY[1,3,5]) is going to get you nowhere with the planner.

​I am not sure but am doubting it is intelligent enough to recognize the functional expression even if all of the values are present.  "simple equality" (http://www.postgresql.org/docs/9.4/interactive/ddl-partitioning.html) this is not.

David J.

pgsql-general by date:

Previous
From: "FarjadFarid\(ChkNet\)"
Date:
Subject: Re: table dependencies
Next
From: Tom Smith
Date:
Subject: jsonb value retrieval performance