On Tue, Jun 21, 2005 at 22:11:25 +1000,
John Hansen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> I misunderstood the original post as a request for queries NOT to use
> indexes where it doesn't match the table contents.
I think that is what they were asking, but I don't think they wanted
to see a sequential
Bruno Wolff III [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Wrote:
> You only want to use partial indexes when they don't cover
> the whole table. They make sense to enforce uniqueness of a
> column under some condition and when you can save significant
> space (becuase the condition is only satisfied for a smal
On Tue, Jun 21, 2005 at 21:54:34 +1000,
John Hansen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Bruno Wolff III [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Wrote
>
> > I think the real problem is that check constraints on tables
> > aren't used by the optimizer. Given that, what you have below
> > is expected.
> > There has b
Bruno Wolff III [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Wrote
> I think the real problem is that check constraints on tables
> aren't used by the optimizer. Given that, what you have below
> is expected.
> There has been talk about that in the past, but I haven't
> heard anything recently about someone consi
On Tue, Jun 21, 2005 at 09:46:50 +1000,
John Hansen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Someone Wrote:
>
> > Should not check constraint act as the first filter? The index should
> > ideally be scanned only when the check constraint is passed by the
> search
> > criteria but surprisingly it did not h
Folks,
> Any discussions at the level of changing infomask bits definitely belong
> on -hackers. Do not be too surprised if you get an unfriendly reception
> when you post low-level changes to -patches that were never previously
> discussed on -hackers ...
Oh, I'm not expecting this to make it i
Christopher Kings-Lynne <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> This is called "range partitioning". We're working on it. You're welcome
>> to
>> join the Bizgres project where most of the discussion on this feature takes
>> place:
>> www.bizgres.org
>> http://pgfoundry.org/mail/?group_id=1000107
> I
Doh, sorry for coming off sounding like a knob here...my point is that
it's not like you guys are some sort of rogue faction implementing range
partitioning against the wishes of "the Man" - it's something that I
think we all agree we want in the backend, so I don't see why you are
making it ha
Josh Berkus said:
> KL-
>
>> I still think the fact that that discussion is taking place on a
>> completely non-hackers mailing list is the lamest thing ever...
>
> What, like phpPgAdmin? ;-)
>
Josh,
That is not an appropriate analogy at all - range partitioning is an
inherently server-side feat
I still think the fact that that discussion is taking place on a
completely non-hackers mailing list is the lamest thing ever...
What, like phpPgAdmin? ;-)
Erm. Last time I checked phpPgAdmin was a userland application, using
PHP and libpq. Bizgres is proposing modifying PostgreSQL itsel
On Mon, 20 Jun 2005, Josh Berkus wrote:
> KL-
>
> > I still think the fact that that discussion is taking place on a
> > completely non-hackers mailing list is the lamest thing ever...
>
> What, like phpPgAdmin? ;-)
>
What on earth does phpPgAdmin have to do with the backend?
I'm on the list an
KL-
> I still think the fact that that discussion is taking place on a
> completely non-hackers mailing list is the lamest thing ever...
What, like phpPgAdmin? ;-)
--
Josh Berkus
Aglio Database Solutions
San Francisco
---(end of broadcast)---
TI
This is called "range partitioning". We're working on it. You're welcome to
join the Bizgres project where most of the discussion on this feature takes
place:
www.bizgres.org
http://pgfoundry.org/mail/?group_id=1000107
I still think the fact that that discussion is taking place on a
comp
Someone Wrote:
> Should not check constraint act as the first filter? The index should
> ideally be scanned only when the check constraint is passed by the
search
> criteria but surprisingly it did not happen. The explain analyze
showed
> cost for index scans of subtables that cannot contain ro
On Mon, 2005-06-20 at 14:40 -0400, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 20, 2005 at 10:35:24AM -0700, Josh Berkus wrote:
> > Rohit,
> >
> > > Now, when I do a select on the basetable with a range of ids, it looks up
> > > each subtable that inherits from the base table and using an indexed scan
> >
On Mon, Jun 20, 2005 at 10:35:24AM -0700, Josh Berkus wrote:
> Rohit,
>
> > Now, when I do a select on the basetable with a range of ids, it looks up
> > each subtable that inherits from the base table and using an indexed scan
> > searches for values in the range. It does it even for subtables wh
Rohit,
> Now, when I do a select on the basetable with a range of ids, it looks up
> each subtable that inherits from the base table and using an indexed scan
> searches for values in the range. It does it even for subtables whose check
> constraint completely rules out the possibility of it conta
17 matches
Mail list logo
