X-Original-To: pgsql-performance-postgresql.org@localhost.postgresql.org Received: from localhost (av.hub.org [200.46.204.144]) by postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 123619DC84B for ; Fri, 17 Feb 2006 10:49:05 -0400 (AST) Received: from postgresql.org ([200.46.204.71]) by localhost (av.hub.org [200.46.204.144]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 50203-03 for ; Fri, 17 Feb 2006 10:49:09 -0400 (AST) X-Greylist: from auto-whitelisted by SQLgrey- Received: from sss.pgh.pa.us (sss.pgh.pa.us [66.207.139.130]) by postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id BD3DB9DC82F for ; Fri, 17 Feb 2006 10:49:02 -0400 (AST) Received: from sss2.sss.pgh.pa.us (tgl@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by sss.pgh.pa.us (8.13.1/8.13.1) with ESMTP id k1HEn5P4009164; Fri, 17 Feb 2006 09:49:05 -0500 (EST) To: martial.bizel@free.fr cc: pgsql-performance@postgresql.org Subject: Re: split partitioned table across several postgres servers In-reply-to: <1140163959.43f585777f2cc@imp2-g19.free.fr> References: <1140018930.43f34ef260de0@imp2-g19.free.fr> <1140022257.22740.225.camel@state.g2switchworks.com> <1140163959.43f585777f2cc@imp2-g19.free.fr> Comments: In-reply-to martial.bizel@free.fr message dated "Fri, 17 Feb 2006 09:12:39 +0100" Date: Fri, 17 Feb 2006 09:49:05 -0500 Message-ID: <9163.1140187745@sss.pgh.pa.us> From: Tom Lane X-Virus-Scanned: by amavisd-new at hub.org X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.11 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.110] X-Spam-Score: 0.11 X-Spam-Level: X-Archive-Number: 200602/280 X-Sequence-Number: 17266 martial.bizel@free.fr writes: > In fact, I don't know how to have explain plan of remote node. You send it an EXPLAIN. You can *not* use a view defined as you suggest if you want decent performance --- the dblink functions will fetch the entire table contents and the filtering will be done locally. You'll need to pass the WHERE conditions over to the remote servers, which more or less means that you have to give them to the dblink functions as text. regards, tom lane