X-Original-To: pgsql-docs-postgresql.org@localhost.postgresql.org
Received: from localhost (av.hub.org [200.46.204.144])
	by svr1.postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 218C3D9A25;
	Wed,  2 Nov 2005 19:57:42 -0400 (AST)
Received: from svr1.postgresql.org ([200.46.204.71])
	by localhost (av.hub.org [200.46.204.144]) (amavisd-new, port 10024)
	with ESMTP id 14840-03; Wed,  2 Nov 2005 23:57:37 +0000 (GMT)
Received: from mailbox.samurai.com (mailbox.samurai.com [205.207.28.82])
	by svr1.postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4F7F0D99BC;
	Wed,  2 Nov 2005 19:57:39 -0400 (AST)
Received: from localhost (mailbox.samurai.com [205.207.28.82])
	by mailbox.samurai.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1D7772395FC;
	Wed,  2 Nov 2005 18:57:42 -0500 (EST)
Received: from mailbox.samurai.com ([205.207.28.82])
	by localhost (mailbox.samurai.com [205.207.28.82]) (amavisd-new,
	port 10024)
	with LMTP id 16977-01-4; Wed,  2 Nov 2005 18:57:39 -0500 (EST)
Received: from [192.168.1.104] (d226-86-55.home.cgocable.net [24.226.86.55])
	by mailbox.samurai.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B244C23946F;
	Wed,  2 Nov 2005 18:57:39 -0500 (EST)
Subject: Re: [PATCHES] Partitioning docs
From: Neil Conway <neilc@samurai.com>
To: Simon Riggs <simon@2ndquadrant.com>
Cc: pgsql-patches@postgresql.org, pgsql-docs@postgresql.org
In-Reply-To: <1130961318.8300.1794.camel@localhost.localdomain>
References: <1130726816.8300.1377.camel@localhost.localdomain>
	<1130798509.8300.1536.camel@localhost.localdomain>
	<1130887177.6884.38.camel@localhost.localdomain>
	<1130961318.8300.1794.camel@localhost.localdomain>
Content-Type: text/plain
Date: Wed, 02 Nov 2005 18:57:39 -0500
Message-Id: <1130975859.6884.54.camel@localhost.localdomain>
Mime-Version: 1.0
X-Mailer: Evolution 2.4.1 
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Virus-Scanned: by amavisd-new at mailbox.samurai.com
X-Virus-Scanned: by amavisd-new at hub.org
X-Spam-Status: No, score=0 required=5 tests=[none]
X-Spam-Score: 0
X-Spam-Level: 
X-Archive-Number: 200511/5
X-Sequence-Number: 3315

On Wed, 2005-02-11 at 19:55 +0000, Simon Riggs wrote:
> Trying to identify which bit of advice you refer to.... I put some
> comments in based upon feedback from the beta on specific queries that
> were not optimised the same as non-inherited tables.

ISTM that query optimization *always* works differently for inherited
versus non-inherited tables, so there are a wide variety of queries you
could describe like that.

The other problem is the documentation is sufficiently vague that it is
of little use, IMHO. Simply saying "query X is optimized differently"
without explaining what causes the difference, what the performance
impact is likely to be, or how to workaround the problem isn't likely to
be very helpful.

-Neil