* PostgreSQL - Hans-Jürgen Schönig (postg...@cybertec.at) wrote: > this seems like more a developer question to me than a pre performance one. > it is not related to the table structure at all - it is basically an issue > with incredibly large inheritance lists. > it applies to postgres 9 and most likely to everything before. > postgresql.conf is not relevant at all at this point.
Really? What's constraint_exclusion set to? Is GEQO getting used? What are the GEQO parameters set to? Do you have any CHECK constraints on the tables? If you want someone else to build a test case and start looking into it, it's best to not make them have to guess at what you've done. > the plan is pretty fine. > the question is rather: does anybody see a chance to handle such lists more > efficiently inside postgres? > also, it is not the point if my data structure is sane or not. it is really > more generic - namely a shortcut for this case inside the planing process. Coming up with cases where PG doesn't perform well in a completely contrived unrealistic environment isn't likely to impress anyone to do anything. A small (but complete..) test case which mimics a real world environment and real world problem would go alot farther. I can certainly believe that people out there have partitions set up with lots of tables and that it will likely grow- but they probably also have CHECK constraints, have tweaked what constraint_exclusion is set to, have adjusted their work_mem and related settings, maybe tweaked some planner GUCs, etc, etc. This is an area I'm actually interested in and curious about, I'd rather work together on it than be told that the questions I'm asking aren't relevant. Thanks, Stephen
Description: Digital signature