On Jan 24, 2008 9:47 AM, Tom Lane <tgl@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> "Tim Rupp" <caphrim007@xxxxxxxxx> writes:
> > ... a bunch of inherited tables that have the following constraint
>
> > CHECK (start_time >= '2008-01-01'::date AND end_time < '2008-01-01'::date)
>
> > and when i do the same query (as in the documentation) on the table, I
> > get a bunch of sequential scans in the planner, and it appears to
> > ignore my constraints
>
> > netflow=# explain SELECT count(*) FROM flows WHERE start_time >= DATE
> > '2008-01-23' AND end_time < '2008-01-26'::date;
>
> I don't think you've thought this through carefully. That WHERE
> condition is not inconsistent with that CHECK constraint, ie, there
> could be some rows in the table that meet the WHERE. In fact,
> a set of constraints of this form don't represent a unique partitioning
> do they? (They might if you added the additional constraint that
> start_time <= end_time, but that's not explicit here.)
>
> regards, tom lane
>
Thanks for the feedback. I think I can accomplish what I want to do.
If I keep the current constraints
CHECK (start_time >= '2008-01-01'::date AND start_time < '2008-01-02'::date)
I guarantee that the end_time will always be >= the start_time, so if
I wanted to select rows from between a time range, then I can have a
where clause which just adds +1 to the start_time and makes it <
something like
where start_time >= '2008-01-01'::date AND start_time < '2008-01-10'::date
should give the same rows as
where start_time >= '2008-01-01'::date AND end_time <= '2008-01-09'::date
but the former would need to scan much fewer tables than the latter.
In any event. I think I know which direction to go. Thanks a lot Tom!
-Tim
---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
TIP 1: if posting/reading through Usenet, please send an appropriate
subscribe-nomail command to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx so that your
message can get through to the mailing list cleanly
