Re: Should we add GUCs to allow partition pruning to be disabled? - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From David Rowley
Subject Re: Should we add GUCs to allow partition pruning to be disabled?
Date
Msg-id CAKJS1f_ymQtcMS_QMYsK05O6EWpC_3PiKoGp3n3-rNAzz+yBVQ@mail.gmail.com
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: Should we add GUCs to allow partition pruning to be disabled?  (Amit Langote <Langote_Amit_f8@lab.ntt.co.jp>)
Responses Re: Should we add GUCs to allow partition pruning to be disabled?
Re: Should we add GUCs to allow partition pruning to be disabled?
List pgsql-hackers
On Mon, 11 Mar 2019 at 14:33, Amit Langote
<Langote_Amit_f8@lab.ntt.co.jp> wrote:
> PG 11 moved the needle a bit for SELECT queries:
>
> Excluding unnecessary partitions is slow for UPDATE and DELETE queries,

With those words I expect the user might be surprised that it's still
slow after doing SET enable_partition_pruning = off;

I'm not really talking about constraint exclusion or partition
pruning. The memory growth problem the user was experiencing was down
to the fact that we plan once per partition and each of the
PlannerInfos used for each planner run has a RangeTblEntry for all
partitions. This means if you add one more partition and you get N
partitions more RangeTblEntry items in memory. This is the quadratic
memory growth that I mentioned in the -general post.

-- 
 David Rowley                   http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
 PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training & Services


pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Amit Langote
Date:
Subject: Re: Should we add GUCs to allow partition pruning to be disabled?
Next
From: "Kuroda, Hayato"
Date:
Subject: RE: ECPG regression with DECLARE STATEMENT support