From: Stephen Frost <sfrost@snowman.net>
To: Ranga Gopalan <ranga_gopalan@hotmail.com>
Cc: pgsql-performance@postgresql.org
Subject: Re: Question about partitioned query behavior
Date: Tue, 6 Jul 2010 16:26:23 -0400
Message-ID: <20100706202623.GM21875@tamriel.snowman.net> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <SNT129-W528E68327857A0FB9BB59A91B20@phx.gbl>
References: <SNT129-W528E68327857A0FB9BB59A91B20@phx.gbl>
Ranga,
* Ranga Gopalan (ranga_gopalan@hotmail.com) wrote:
> It seems that this is an issue faced by others as well - Please see this link: http://stackoverflow.com/questions/2236776/efficient-querying-of-multi-partition-postgres-table
>
> Is this a known bug? Is this something that someone is working on or is there a known work around?
Actually, if you look at that, the problem the original poster had was
that they didn't have constraint_exclusion turned on. Then they were
complaining about having the (empty) master table and the needed
partition included (which, really, shouldn't be that big a deal).
Did you look at what the other reply suggested? Do you have
constraint_exclusion = 'on' in your postgresql.conf?
Thanks,
Stephen
Attachments:
signature.asc (application/pgp-signature, 196B) download
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-performance@postgresql.org
Cc: sfrost@snowman.net, ranga_gopalan@hotmail.com
Subject: Re: Question about partitioned query behavior
In-Reply-To: <20100706202623.GM21875@tamriel.snowman.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