Re: Should we add GUCs to allow partition pruning to be disabled?
От | David Rowley |
---|---|
Тема | Re: Should we add GUCs to allow partition pruning to be disabled? |
Дата | |
Msg-id | CAKJS1f_ymQtcMS_QMYsK05O6EWpC_3PiKoGp3n3-rNAzz+yBVQ@mail.gmail.com обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: Should we add GUCs to allow partition pruning to be disabled? (Amit Langote <Langote_Amit_f8@lab.ntt.co.jp>) |
Ответы |
Re: Should we add GUCs to allow partition pruning to be disabled?
Re: Should we add GUCs to allow partition pruning to be disabled? |
Список | pgsql-hackers |
On Mon, 11 Mar 2019 at 14:33, Amit Langote <Langote_Amit_f8@lab.ntt.co.jp> wrote: > PG 11 moved the needle a bit for SELECT queries: > > Excluding unnecessary partitions is slow for UPDATE and DELETE queries, With those words I expect the user might be surprised that it's still slow after doing SET enable_partition_pruning = off; I'm not really talking about constraint exclusion or partition pruning. The memory growth problem the user was experiencing was down to the fact that we plan once per partition and each of the PlannerInfos used for each planner run has a RangeTblEntry for all partitions. This means if you add one more partition and you get N partitions more RangeTblEntry items in memory. This is the quadratic memory growth that I mentioned in the -general post. -- David Rowley http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/ PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training & Services
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: