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,
hans
--
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:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
