Generally, when you partition, data should only be in child tables, and the parent table should be empty, otherwise you defeat the purpose of parttioning.`
On Thu, May 28, 2015 at 12:25 PM, Ravi Krishna <sravikrish...@gmail.com> wrote: > > Have you set up constraints on the partitions? The planner needs to know > > what is in the child tables so it can avoid scanning them. > > Yes. each child table is defined as follows > > CREATE TABLE TSTESTING.ACCOUNT_PART1 > > ( CHECK (ACCOUNT_ROW_INST BETWEEN 1001 and 271660)) > > INHERITS (TSTESTING.ACCOUNT); > > ALTER TABLE TSTESTING.ACCOUNT_PART1 ADD CONSTRAINT ACCOUNT_PART1_PKEY > PRIMARY KEY (ACCOUNT_ROW_INST); > > Perhaps I was not clear. The planner is excluding partitions which can > not contain the rows looked up in the WHERE clause. However it is > still scanning the parent table. > > Aggregate (cost=8.45..8.46 rows=1 width=0) > -> Append (cost=0.00..8.44 rows=2 width=0) > -> Seq Scan on account (cost=0.00..0.00 rows=1 width=0) > Filter: (account_row_inst = 101) > -> Index Only Scan using account_part1_pkey on account_part1 > (cost=0.42..8.44 rows=1 width=0) > Index Cond: (account_row_inst = 101) > (6 rows) > > > -- > Sent via pgsql-general mailing list (pgsql-general@postgresql.org) > To make changes to your subscription: > http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-general > -- *Melvin Davidson* I reserve the right to fantasize. Whether or not you wish to share my fantasy is entirely up to you.
