Message-ID: <54049AE1.8010703@vmware.com>
Date: Mon, 1 Sep 2014 19:12:17 +0300
From: Heikki Linnakangas <hlinnakangas@vmware.com>
Organization: VMware
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64;
 rv:24.0) Gecko/20100101 Icedove/24.5.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>, Greg Stark <stark@mit.edu>
CC: Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@2ndquadrant.com>, Pg Hackers
 <pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org>
Subject: Re: On partitioning
References: <20140829155607.GF7705@eldon.alvh.no-ip.org>
 <16957.1409515410@sss.pgh.pa.us>
 <CAM-w4HM_aM3D0dThzW03sGxsk5Ou=vjuSkO_bDqSGiYFOM+TfQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <25793.1409587177@sss.pgh.pa.us>
In-Reply-To: <25793.1409587177@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Precedence: bulk
Sender: pgsql-hackers-owner@postgresql.org

On 09/01/2014 06:59 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
> Greg Stark <stark@mit.edu> writes:
>> On Sun, Aug 31, 2014 at 9:03 PM, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
>>> Aside from costing planning time, most likely that would forever prevent
>>> us from pushing some types of intelligence about partitioning into the
>>> executor.
>
>> How would it affect this calculus if there were partitioned indexes
>> which were created on the overall table and guaranteed to exist on
>> each partition that the planner could use -- and then possibly also
>> per-partition indexes that might exist in addition to those?
>
> That doesn't actually fix the planning-time issue at all.  Either the
> planner considers each partition individually to create a custom plan
> for it, or it doesn't.

Hmm. Couldn't you plan together all partitions that do have the same 
indexes? In other words, create a custom plan for each group of 
partitions, rather than each partition?

- Heikki


-- 
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers