On 9/23/25 12:20, Frédéric Yhuel wrote:
On 9/22/25 23:15, Andrei Lepikhov wrote:
I'm not sure I fully understand your case, but SQL Server demonstrates
an interesting approach: they have a WHERE clause attached to
statistics. So, having implemented this, you may separate the whole
range of
On Fri, 26 Sept 2025 at 07:49, Lauro Ojeda wrote:
> The only way I found to make pruning work is to force index_scan using
> pg_hint_plan, but I wanted to influence the planner to decide it by itself
> rather than relying on hints. What's the reason for this misbehaving and what
> could I do to
Never mind my message. I misread it and missed the plan with no hints.
Michał
> On 25 Sep 2025, at 22:10, Michał Kłeczek wrote:
>
>
> Hi,
>
> Partition pruning is happening: pruned nodes are marked as “never executed”.
> It is just that pruning is performed not by the planner but by the ex
Hi,
Partition pruning is happening: pruned nodes are marked as “never executed”.
It is just that pruning is performed not by the planner but by the executor in
this case.
—
Michał
> On 25 Sep 2025, at 21:49, Lauro Ojeda wrote:
>
>
> Hi super-experts,
> I am trying to solve a mystery for a
Hi super-experts,
I am trying to solve a mystery for a customer where they had some very
large heap tables (500GB+ each) on their PG 13 database which was bringing
them loads of performance problems.
Apart from the regular server tuning efforts, I suggested them to upgrade
it to at least Postgresql
On 9/23/25 15:31, Frédéric Yhuel wrote:
To get back to the topic of partitioned statistics, do you know if SQL
Server is smart enough to handle this case [1] that we discussed last
year? (with filtered statistics)
[1] https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/flat/b860c71a-7cab-4d88-
ad87-8c1f
