Re: [HACKERS] path toward faster partition pruning

From: Amit Langote <Langote_Amit_f8(at)lab(dot)ntt(dot)co(dot)jp>
To: Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>
Cc: Kyotaro HORIGUCHI <horiguchi(dot)kyotaro(at)lab(dot)ntt(dot)co(dot)jp>, Jesper Pedersen <jesper(dot)pedersen(at)redhat(dot)com>, David Rowley <david(dot)rowley(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Amit Langote <amitlangote09(at)gmail(dot)com>, Rajkumar Raghuwanshi <rajkumar(dot)raghuwanshi(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>, Dilip Kumar <dilipbalaut(at)gmail(dot)com>, Beena Emerson <memissemerson(at)gmail(dot)com>, "pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] path toward faster partition pruning
Date: 2018-02-13 11:08:59
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On 2018/02/09 21:36, Amit Langote wrote:
> 0004-Faster-partition-pruning.patch
> The main patch that adds src/backend/optimizer/util/partprune.c, a module
> to provide the functionality that will replace the current approach of
> calling relation_excluded_by_constraints() for each partition.
> Sorry, but there is still this big TODO here, which I'll try to fix early
> next week.
> + * partprune.c
> + * Provides functions to prune partitions of a partitioned table by
> + * comparing provided set of clauses with the table's partitions'
> + * boundaries
> + *
> + * TODO: write a longer description of things in this file

And I tried to fix that to some degree in the attached updated version.


Attachment Content-Type Size
v26-0001-Modify-bound-comparision-functions-to-accept-mem.patch text/plain 6.5 KB
v26-0002-Refactor-partition-bound-search-functions.patch text/plain 8.3 KB
v26-0003-Add-parttypid-partcollation-partsupfunc-to-Parti.patch text/plain 5.3 KB
v26-0004-Faster-partition-pruning.patch text/plain 106.1 KB
v26-0005-Add-only-unpruned-partitioned-child-rels-to-part.patch text/plain 8.1 KB

In response to


Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Tels 2018-02-13 11:30:53 Re: Using scalar function as set-returning: bug or feature?
Previous Message Masahiko Sawada 2018-02-13 10:42:53 Re: [HACKERS] Transactions involving multiple postgres foreign servers