Re: Asynchronous Append on postgres_fdw nodes.

From: Kyotaro Horiguchi <horikyota(dot)ntt(at)gmail(dot)com>
To: a(dot)lepikhov(at)postgrespro(dot)ru
Cc: etsuro(dot)fujita(at)gmail(dot)com, movead(dot)li(at)highgo(dot)ca, pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: Asynchronous Append on postgres_fdw nodes.
Date: 2020-06-15 08:29:34
Message-ID: 20200615.172934.587211238374081803.horikyota.ntt@gmail.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Thanks for testing, but..

At Mon, 15 Jun 2020 08:51:23 +0500, "Andrey V. Lepikhov" <a(dot)lepikhov(at)postgrespro(dot)ru> wrote in
> The patch has a problem with partitionwise aggregates.
>
> Asynchronous append do not allow the planner to use partial
> aggregates. Example you can see in attachment. I can't understand why:
> costs of partitionwise join are less.
> Initial script and explains of the query with and without the patch
> you can see in attachment.

I had more or less the same plan with the second one without the patch
(that is, vanilla master/HEAD, but used merge joins instead).

I'm not sure what prevented join pushdown, but the difference between
the two is whether the each partitionwise join is pushed down to
remote or not, That is hardly seems related to the async execution
patch.

Could you tell me how did you get the first plan?

regards.

--
Kyotaro Horiguchi
NTT Open Source Software Center

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Daniel Gustafsson 2020-06-15 08:54:49 Re: [bug?] Is the format of tables in the documentation broken in PG 13?
Previous Message tsunakawa.takay@fujitsu.com 2020-06-15 07:49:11 [bug?] Is the format of tables in the documentation broken in PG 13?