Received: from maia.hub.org (maia-3.hub.org [200.46.204.243]) by mail.postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 839501337B98 for ; Thu, 7 Oct 2010 04:28:43 -0300 (ADT) Received: from mail.postgresql.org ([200.46.204.86]) by maia.hub.org (mx1.hub.org [200.46.204.243]) (amavisd-maia, port 10024) with ESMTP id 96166-08 for ; Thu, 7 Oct 2010 07:28:36 +0000 (UTC) X-Greylist: domain auto-whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6 Received: from exprod7og110.obsmtp.com (exprod7og110.obsmtp.com [64.18.2.173]) by mail.postgresql.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 76D4C1337BB0 for ; Thu, 7 Oct 2010 04:28:35 -0300 (ADT) Received: from source ([209.85.215.44]) by exprod7ob110.postini.com ([64.18.6.12]) with SMTP ID DSNKTK12onAQz99rT92bLb6QMdRqbmfn4w4v@postini.com; Thu, 07 Oct 2010 00:28:36 PDT Received: by ewy21 with SMTP id 21so95988ewy.31 for ; Thu, 07 Oct 2010 00:28:33 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.14.119.7 with SMTP id m7mr217051eeh.40.1286436512724; Thu, 07 Oct 2010 00:28:32 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [192.168.1.183] (dsl-hkibrasgw2-ff7ac300-240.dhcp.inet.fi [88.195.122.240]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id v59sm2945154eeh.10.2010.10.07.00.28.30 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=RC4-MD5); Thu, 07 Oct 2010 00:28:31 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <4CAD769D.9090301@enterprisedb.com> Date: Thu, 07 Oct 2010 10:28:29 +0300 From: Heikki Linnakangas User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux x86_64; fi-FI; rv:1.9.1.12) Gecko/20100913 Icedove/3.0.7 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Vincenzo Romano CC: pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org Subject: Re: On Scalability References: <1280423526.8613.36.camel@jd-desktop.unknown.charter.com> <1280425184.8613.41.camel@jd-desktop.unknown.charter.com> <1280427410.8613.44.camel@jd-desktop.unknown.charter.com> In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Virus-Scanned: Maia Mailguard 1.0.1 X-Spam-Status: No, hits=-4.2 tagged_above=-5 required=5 tests=BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3 X-Spam-Level: X-Archive-Number: 201010/418 X-Sequence-Number: 171458 On 07.10.2010 10:09, Vincenzo Romano wrote: > Any feedbacks from TGL and Heikki, then? I don't have anything to add to what others said already. Your best advice is to test it yourself. I would expect the plan time to be linear relative to the number of partial indexes or child tables involved, except that constraint exclusion of CHECK constraints on the partitions is exponential. But I also wouldn't be surprised if there's some other non-linear aspect there that shows its head with thousands of partitions. -- Heikki Linnakangas EnterpriseDB http://www.enterprisedb.com