Tom Lane <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> It's usually better to use partitioning rules that have something to
> do with the WHERE-clauses you'd be using anyway. For instance, try
> to partition on ranges.
I agree and tried to create new partitioned tables. But now I ran into
some other performance-related trouble when inserting (parts of) the old
(unpartioned) table into the new one:
CREATE TABLE t_unparted (id1 int, cont varchar);
-- Populate table with 1000 records with id1 from 1 to 1000 and ANALYZE
CREATE TABLE t_parted (id1 int, cont varchar);
CREATE TABLE t_parted_000 (check (id1 >=0 AND id1 < 100)) INHERITS (t_parted);
CREATE RULE ins_000 AS ON INSERT TO t_parted WHERE id1 >= 0 AND id1 < 100 DO
INSTEAD INSERT INTO t_parted_000 VALUES (new.*);
-- ... 8 more tables + 8 more rules
CREATE TABLE t_parted_900 (check (id1 >=900 AND id1 < 1000)) INHERITS
(t_parted);
CREATE RULE ins_900 AS ON INSERT TO t_parted WHERE id1 >= 900 AND id1 < 1000
DO INSTEAD INSERT INTO t_parted_900 VALUES (new.*);
And now:
EXPLAIN INSERT INTO t_parted SELECT * FROM t_parted WHERE id1>=0 AND id1<100;
Result (cost=0.00..170.80 rows=12 width=36)
-> Append (cost=0.00..170.80 rows=12 width=36)
-> Seq Scan on t_parted (cost=0.00..85.40 rows=6 width=36)
Filter: ((id1 >= 0) AND (id1 < 100) AND (((id1 >= 0) AND (id1 <
100)) IS NOT TRUE) AND (((id1 >= 100) AND (id1 < 200)) IS NOT TRUE) AND (((id1
>= 200) AND (id1 < 300)) IS NOT TRUE) AND (((id1 >= 300) AND (id1 < 400)) IS
NOT TRUE) AND (((id1 >= 400) AND (id1 < 500)) IS NOT TRUE) AND (((id1 >= 500)
AND (id1 < 600)) IS NOT TRUE) AND (((id1 >= 600) AND (id1 < 700)) IS NOT TRUE)
AND (((id1 >= 700) AND (id1 < 800)) IS NOT TRUE) AND (((id1 >= 800) AND (id1 <
900)) IS NOT TRUE) AND (((id1 >= 900) AND (id1 < 1000)) IS NOT TRUE))
-> Seq Scan on t_parted_000 t_parted (cost=0.00..85.40 rows=6
width=36)
Filter: ((id1 >= 0) AND (id1 < 100) AND (((id1 >= 0) AND (id1 <
100)) IS NOT TRUE) AND (((id1 >= 100) AND (id1 < 200)) IS NOT TRUE) AND (((id1
>= 200) AND (id1 < 300)) IS NOT TRUE) AND (((id1 >= 300) AND (id1 < 400)) IS
NOT TRUE) AND (((id1 >= 400) AND (id1 < 500)) IS NOT TRUE) AND (((id1 >= 500)
AND (id1 < 600)) IS NOT TRUE) AND (((id1 >= 600) AND (id1 < 700)) IS NOT TRUE)
AND (((id1 >= 700) AND (id1 < 800)) IS NOT TRUE) AND (((id1 >= 800) AND (id1 <
900)) IS NOT TRUE) AND (((id1 >= 900) AND (id1 < 1000)) IS NOT TRUE))
Result (cost=0.00..66.40 rows=12 width=36)
-> Append (cost=0.00..66.40 rows=12 width=36)
-> Seq Scan on t_parted (cost=0.00..33.20 rows=6 width=36)
Filter: ((id1 >= 0) AND (id1 < 100) AND (id1 >= 0) AND (id1 <
100))
-> Seq Scan on t_parted_000 t_parted (cost=0.00..33.20 rows=6
width=36)
Filter: ((id1 >= 0) AND (id1 < 100) AND (id1 >= 0) AND (id1 <
100))
...
Result (cost=0.00..33.20 rows=6 width=36)
-> Append (cost=0.00..33.20 rows=6 width=36)
-> Seq Scan on t_parted (cost=0.00..33.20 rows=6 width=36)
Filter: ((id1 >= 0) AND (id1 < 100) AND (id1 >= 900) AND (id1 <
1000))
(58 rows)
The filters appended by the planner do not make any sense and cost too
much time if the old table is huge. (constraint_exclusion was ON)
Is there a better way to partition an existing table with a large
number of rows (>100 mio)?
TIA, Martin
---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
TIP 9: In versions below 8.0, the planner will ignore your desire to
choose an index scan if your joining column's datatypes do not
match
