Re: UNION ALL on partitioned tables won't use indices.

From: Kyotaro HORIGUCHI <horiguchi(dot)kyotaro(at)lab(dot)ntt(dot)co(dot)jp>
To: noah(at)leadboat(dot)com
Cc: tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us, peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net, robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: UNION ALL on partitioned tables won't use indices.
Date: 2014-03-10 06:10:43
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Hello. Attached is the 2nd version of 'pushdown in UNION ALL on
partitioned tables' patch type 1 - fix in equiv-member version.

As far as I can see, I have found no problem on the original
Tom's patch. I have no annoyance of modifying inh flag and so
with this.

At Tue, 04 Mar 2014 18:57:56 +0900, Kyotaro HORIGUCHI wrote
me> Mmm. That's motifying but you seems to be right :) Equipping this
me> with some regression tests become my work from now.

And I took an advantage of using Noah's regression test after
some modifications. After all, this patch consists of work of you
all. Thanks for all you did to me.

I simplified the query for regression tests so as to clarify the
objective and getting rid of confisions of readers. Using only
the first column seems to be enough to also make sure of pushing
down and ordering.

Any comments?

At Wed, 05 Mar 2014 13:59:45 -0500, Tom Lane wrote
tgl> >> ec_relids has never included child relids.
> > | Relids ec_relids; /* all relids appearing in ec_members */
> > ...
> > | Relids em_relids; /* all relids appearing in em_expr */
> Ah. Those comments could use improvement, I guess.

The revised comment makes it clear. Thank you.


Kyotaro Horiguchi
NTT Open Source Software Center

Attachment Content-Type Size
unionall_inh_idx_typ1_v2_20140310.patch text/x-patch 6.1 KB

In response to


Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Michael Paquier 2014-03-10 06:45:18 Re: calculating an aspect of shared buffer state from a background worker
Previous Message Tomonari Katsumata 2014-03-10 05:51:17 Re: Little confusing things about client_min_messages.