=?iso-8859-1?Q?PostgreSQL_-_Hans-J=FCrgen_Sch=F6nig?= <postg...@cybertec.at>
writes:
> imagine a system with, say, 1000 partitions (heavily indexed) or so. the time
> taken by the planner is already fairly heavy in this case.
As the fine manual points out, the current scheme for managing
partitioned tables isn't intended to scale past a few dozen partitions.
I think we'll be able to do better when we have an explicit
representation of partitioning, since then the planner won't
have to expend large amounts of effort reverse-engineering knowledge
about how an inheritance tree is partitioned. Before that happens,
it's not really worth the trouble to worry about such cases.
regards, tom lane
--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
