pg.ddx.io  pgsql-performance@postgresql.org mailing list archive  
help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Martin Lesser <ml-pgsql@bettercom.de>
To: pgsql-performance@postgresql.org
Subject: Partitioning / constrain exlusion not working with %-operator
Date: Mon, 31 Jul 2006 14:17:08 +0200
Message-ID: <87ejw27yuz.fsf@fs-home.bettercom.de> (raw)

I try to partition a large table (~ 120 mio. rows) into 50 smaller
tables but using the IMO immutable %-function constraint exclusion
does not work as expected:

CREATE TABLE tt_m (id1 int, cont varchar);
CREATE TABLE tt_0 (check (id1 % 50 = 0)) INHERITS (tt_m);
CREATE TABLE tt_1 (check (id1 % 50 = 1)) INHERITS (tt_m);
....
CREATE RULE ins_tt_0 AS ON INSERT TO tt_m WHERE id1 % 50 = 0 DO INSTEAD INSERT INTO tt_0 VALUES (new.*);
CREATE RULE ins_tt_1 AS ON INSERT TO tt_m WHERE id1 % 50 = 1 DO INSTEAD INSERT INTO tt_1 VALUES (new.*);
...
INSERT INTO tt_m (id1,cont) VALUES (0,'Test1');
INSERT INTO tt_m (id1,cont) VALUES (1,'Test2');
....
EXPLAIN SELECT * FROM tt_m WHERE id1=1;
                              QUERY PLAN
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
 Result  (cost=0.00..73.50 rows=18 width=36)
   ->  Append  (cost=0.00..73.50 rows=18 width=36)
         ->  Seq Scan on tt_m  (cost=0.00..24.50 rows=6 width=36)
               Filter: (id1 = 1)
         ->  Seq Scan on tt_0 tt_m  (cost=0.00..24.50 rows=6 width=36)
               Filter: (id1 = 1)
         ->  Seq Scan on tt_1 tt_m  (cost=0.00..24.50 rows=6 width=36)
               Filter: (id1 = 1)
         ...

Only adding an explicit %-call to the query results in the expected plan:

EXPLAIN SELECT * FROM tt_m WHERE id1=1 AND id1 % 50 = 1;
                              QUERY PLAN
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
 Result  (cost=0.00..60.60 rows=2 width=36)
   ->  Append  (cost=0.00..60.60 rows=2 width=36)
         ->  Seq Scan on tt_m  (cost=0.00..30.30 rows=1 width=36)
               Filter: ((id1 = 1) AND ((id1 % 50) = 1))
         ->  Seq Scan on tt_1 tt_m  (cost=0.00..30.30 rows=1 width=36)
               Filter: ((id1 = 1) AND ((id1 % 50) = 1))

Did I miss something and/or how could I force the planner to use
constraint exclusion without adding the explicit second condition above?

TIA, Martin



view thread (3+ messages)  latest in thread

Message-ID: <87ejw27yuz.fsf@fs-home.bettercom.de>
Permalink:  ../87ejw27yuz.fsf@fs-home.bettercom.de/
Also on:    postgresql.org/message-id/87ejw27yuz.fsf@fs-home.bettercom.de

 · 

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: ml-pgsql@bettercom.de
  Subject: Re: Partitioning / constrain exlusion not working with %-operator
  In-Reply-To: <87ejw27yuz.fsf@fs-home.bettercom.de>

* 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