From: Harald Fuchs <hari.fuchs@gmail.com>
To: pgsql-admin@postgresql.org
Subject: Re: Partitionin with check functions
Date: Mon, 30 Mar 2009 17:08:57 +0200
Message-ID: <pu63hr3v5i.fsf@srv.protecting.net> (raw)
References: <20867.32524.qm@web111513.mail.gq1.yahoo.com>
<2499.1238420859@sss.pgh.pa.us>
In article <2499.1238420859@sss.pgh.pa.us>,
Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> writes:
> In particular, a constraint like "sel=123" is *not* going to lead the
> planner to draw any conclusions about the value of "mod(sel,6)".
> Now, if you'd written "WHERE mod(sel,6)=3", I think it would draw
> the right conclusions.
Yes, it does. It might be worthwile to use
WHERE sel=123 AND mod(sel,6)=3
I think you could use a rule to add the mod() condition automatically.
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Reply to all the recipients using the --to and --cc options:
reply via email
To: pgsql-admin@postgresql.org
Cc: hari.fuchs@gmail.com
Subject: Re: Partitionin with check functions
In-Reply-To: <pu63hr3v5i.fsf@srv.protecting.net>
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
This inbox is served by DDX for PostgreSQL; see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox