Re: TB-sized databases
| От | Tom Lane |
|---|---|
| Тема | Re: TB-sized databases |
| Дата | |
| Msg-id | 15753.1196957598@sss.pgh.pa.us обсуждение исходный текст |
| Ответ на | Re: TB-sized databases (Michael Stone <mstone+postgres@mathom.us>) |
| Ответы |
Re: TB-sized databases
Re: TB-sized databases Re: TB-sized databases |
| Список | pgsql-performance |
Michael Stone <mstone+postgres@mathom.us> writes:
> OTOH, the planner can really screw up queries on really large databases.
> IIRC, the planner can use things like unique constraints to get some
> idea, e.g., of how many rows will result from a join. Unfortunately,
> the planner can't apply those techniques to certain constructs common in
> really large db's (e.g., partitioned tables--how do you do a unique
> constraint on a partitioned table?) I've got some queries that the
> planner thinks will return on the order of 10^30 rows for that sort of
> reason. In practice, the query may return 10^3 rows, and the difference
> between the seq scan and the index scan is the difference between a
> query that takes a few seconds and a query that I will never run to
> completion. I know the goal would be to make the planner understand
> those queries better,
Indeed, and if you've got examples where it's that far off, you should
report them.
regards, tom lane
В списке pgsql-performance по дате отправления: