Re: plan time of MASSIVE partitioning ...

=?iso-8859-1?Q?PostgreSQL_-_Hans-J=FCrgen_Sch=F6nig?= <postgres@cybertec.at> writes:
> imagine a system with, say, 1000 partitions (heavily indexed) or so. the time taken by the planner is already fairly heavy in this case.

As the fine manual points out, the current scheme for managing
partitioned tables isn't intended to scale past a few dozen partitions.

I think we'll be able to do better when we have an explicit
representation of partitioning, since then the planner won't
have to expend large amounts of effort reverse-engineering knowledge
about how an inheritance tree is partitioned.  Before that happens,
it's not really worth the trouble to worry about such cases.

			regards, tom lane