pg.ddx.io  pgsql-performance@postgresql.org mailing list archive  

help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Stephen Frost <sfrost@snowman.net>
To: Vincenzo Romano <vincenzo.romano@notorand.it>
Cc: Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com>
Cc: Heikki Linnakangas <heikki.linnakangas@enterprisedb.com>
Cc: Simon Riggs <simon@2ndquadrant.com>
Cc: pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org
Subject: Re: On Scalability
Date: Thu, 7 Oct 2010 11:15:44 -0400
Message-ID: <20101007151544.GW26232@tamriel.snowman.net> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <AANLkTikVMZEppXib1Sv3ZH8QJo3LcG2axopBDM8RS705@mail.gmail.com>
References: <4CAD769D.9090301@enterprisedb.com>
	<1286437290.2304.192.camel@ebony>
	<4CAD7BED.4050009@enterprisedb.com>
	<AANLkTi==OD9afGEDOm7OY3KYydLXcMj=kO7M5+QFbaM0@mail.gmail.com>
	<AANLkTiktPBVfa950ntGVDroY8ZNR1npQaA-oPnAJSn7n@mail.gmail.com>
	<AANLkTi=ZH-bBoXhsMf0Nj9xxmjoTCTj5Sjgk1cR1h-SH@mail.gmail.com>
	<20101007142927.GT26232@tamriel.snowman.net>
	<AANLkTi=vq6f7gERj6zKJbKg-ewKAqYaSzcmO0Qog3yn5@mail.gmail.com>
	<20101007145219.GU26232@tamriel.snowman.net>
	<AANLkTikVMZEppXib1Sv3ZH8QJo3LcG2axopBDM8RS705@mail.gmail.com>

* Vincenzo Romano (vincenzo.romano@notorand.it) wrote:
> 2010/10/7 Stephen Frost <sfrost@snowman.net>:
> > * Vincenzo Romano (vincenzo.romano@notorand.it) wrote:
> > The problem is that CHECK conditions can contain just about anything,
> > hence the planner needs to deal with that possibility.
> 
> Not really. For partitioning there would be some constraints as you
> have in the DEFAULT values.

How do we know when it's partitioning and not a CHECK constraint being
used for something else..?  I'll tell you- through the user using
specific partitioning DDL statements.

> Consuming computing resources at DDL-time should be OK if that will
> lead to big savings at DML-time (run-time), my opinion. It'd be just like
> compile time optimizations.

CHECK constraints, inheiritance, etc, are general things which can be
used for more than just partitioning.  Abusing them to go through tons
of extra gyrations to make the specific partitioning case faster at DML
time (if that's really even possible...  I'm not convinced you could
make it bullet-proof) isn't a good approach.

	Thanks,

		Stephen

Attachments:

  signature.asc (application/pgp-signature, 196B) download

view thread (45+ messages)  latest in thread

Message-ID: <20101007151544.GW26232@tamriel.snowman.net>
Permalink:  ../20101007151544.GW26232@tamriel.snowman.net/
Also on:    postgresql.org/message-id/20101007151544.GW26232@tamriel.snowman.net

 · 

reply
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, vincenzo.romano@notorand.it, robertmhaas@gmail.com, heikki.linnakangas@enterprisedb.com, simon@2ndquadrant.com, pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org
  Subject: Re: On Scalability
  In-Reply-To: <20101007151544.GW26232@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