"Mark Morgan Lloyd" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Thanks. If the tables were in a tablespace that was stored on something that > looked like a conventional filesystem would the server code be prepared to > wait > the minutes that it took the operating system and FUSE implementation to load > the tables onto disc?
Ah, I see what you mean now. I think you might have a problem with the planner opening the files to do an lseek to measure how large they are. I'm not sure if that gets triggered before or after constraint exclusion. That's the only problem I can think of. > The earlier work e.g. http://www.vldb.org/conf/1996/P156.PDF apparently warned > the planner about long-latency devices but that's probably unnecessary if the > application program was aware that a table had been partitioned by age and > accessing old data could be slow. Well it's not like there are any alternative plans that will avoid the need to access the data at all. I assume the FUSE setup will always have to load the entire file so there's no even any difference between indexed and sequential access. (Unless the table is over 1G in which case you might want to avoid sequential scans if index scans would avoid accessing some segments.) -- Gregory Stark EnterpriseDB http://www.enterprisedb.com ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- TIP 1: if posting/reading through Usenet, please send an appropriate subscribe-nomail command to [EMAIL PROTECTED] so that your message can get through to the mailing list cleanly
