Scara Maccai wrote: > > Huh, clearly not the same query (you're using the partition directly > > in the first query) ... Doing two changes at once is not helping > > your case. > > Sorry, I don't understand... of course I used the partition directly > in the first query... it's the difference between the two... what I > don't like is that since the tables used are in fact the same, the > plan shouldn't be that different. I misread your original email to say that you were changing the parameter. What version are you using? Also, please post the table definitions (preferably in pg_dump -s format) > My conclusion is that the planner thinks there could be some data in > the "root" partition, even if that will always be empty. > What I would like is a way to tell Postgres "hey, don't even look at > the root table. That's just a placeholder for the partitions. It will > never contain any data" when I create the tables. > > Otherwise the planner might get fooled by an empty table index scan in > a loop (which is what happens here), thinking that that will take > time. I'm not sure I agree with your assessment of the problem. -- Alvaro Herrera http://www.CommandPrompt.com/ The PostgreSQL Company - Command Prompt, Inc. -- Sent via pgsql-general mailing list (pgsql-general@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-general
