On Sep 3, 2010, at 4:40 PM, Tom Lane wrote:

> =?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

thank you ... - the manual is clear here but we wanted to see if there is some 
reasonably low hanging fruit to get around this.
it is no solution but at least a clear statement ...

        many thanks,


Cybertec Schönig & Schönig GmbH
Gröhrmühlgasse 26
A-2700 Wiener Neustadt, Austria
Web: http://www.postgresql-support.de

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

Reply via email to