Received: from localhost (mx1.hub.org [200.46.208.251]) by postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4A4429FA430 for ; Mon, 30 Oct 2006 04:19:06 -0400 (AST) Received: from postgresql.org ([200.46.204.71]) by localhost (mx1.hub.org [200.46.208.251]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 22729-10 for ; Mon, 30 Oct 2006 04:19:02 -0400 (AST) X-Greylist: from auto-whitelisted by SQLgrey- Received: from mail01.enterprisedb.com (mail01.enterprisedb.com [63.246.7.168]) by postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5D4079FA3A0 for ; Mon, 30 Oct 2006 04:19:02 -0400 (AST) thread-index: Acb7/A6kdrY8adJoQkejGuL/NlLOpg== Received: from [192.168.0.31] ([84.12.199.61]) by mail01.enterprisedb.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.1830); Mon, 30 Oct 2006 03:19:01 -0500 Subject: Re: partitioned table performance From: "Simon Riggs" Content-Class: urn:content-classes:message Importance: normal X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.3790.2757 To: "Andreas Kostyrka" Cc: In-Reply-To: <1162074485.16385.93.camel@andi-lap> References: <1162074485.16385.93.camel@andi-lap> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Date: Mon, 30 Oct 2006 08:18:21 +0000 Message-ID: <1162196302.11568.221.camel@silverbirch.site> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Evolution 2.6.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-OriginalArrivalTime: 30 Oct 2006 08:19:02.0203 (UTC) FILETIME=[0E9B58B0:01C6FBFC] X-Virus-Scanned: Maia Mailguard 1.0.1 X-Spam-Status: No, hits=1 tagged_above=0 required=5 tests=BAYES_60 X-Spam-Level: * X-Archive-Number: 200610/606 X-Sequence-Number: 21735 On Sun, 2006-10-29 at 00:28 +0200, Andreas Kostyrka wrote: > Any ideas how to make the optimizer handle partitioned tables more > sensible? Yes, those are known inefficiencies in the current implementation which we expect to address for 8.3. -- Simon Riggs EnterpriseDB http://www.enterprisedb.com