|From:||Amit Langote <Langote_Amit_f8(at)lab(dot)ntt(dot)co(dot)jp>|
|To:||David Rowley <david(dot)rowley(at)2ndquadrant(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>, Amit Langote <amitlangote09(at)gmail(dot)com>, Rajkumar Raghuwanshi <rajkumar(dot)raghuwanshi(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, Dilip Kumar <dilipbalaut(at)gmail(dot)com>, Beena Emerson <memissemerson(at)gmail(dot)com>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>|
|Subject:||Re: [HACKERS] path toward faster partition pruning|
|Views:||Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox|
On 2018/02/01 8:57, David Rowley wrote:
> On 31 January 2018 at 21:03, Amit Langote <Langote_Amit_f8(at)lab(dot)ntt(dot)co(dot)jp> wrote:
>> Update patch set attached. Thanks again.
> (My apologies for being slow to respond here. I've been on leave this
> week and I'm off again next week. I now have a little time to reply)
> Thanks for incorporating my changes into the patchset. A while ago I
> was rebasing the run-time pruning patch on top of this but ran into a
> few problems which are all results of my changes.
> 1. remove_redundant_clauses collapses the PartClause list into the
> most restrictive set of clauses. This disallows multiple evaluations
> of the PartitionClauseInfo during runtime pruning. I've written a
> proposed fix for this and attached it.
I've incorporated it in the latest patch I posted today.
> 2. PartitionClauseInfo->keyclauses is a list of PartClause which is
> not a node type. This will cause _copyPartitionClauseInfo() to fail.
> I'm still not quite sure the best way to fix #2 since PartClause
> contains a FmgrInfo. I do have a local fix which moves PartClause to
> primnodes.h and makes it a proper node type. I also added a copy
> function which does not copy any of the cache fields in PartClause. It
> just sets valid_cache to false. I didn't particularly think this was
> the correct fix. I just couldn't think of how exactly this should be
> done at the time.
> The attached patch also adds the missing nodetag from
> PartitionClauseInfo and also fixes up other code so as we don't memset
> the node memory to zero, as that would destroy the tag. I ended up
> just having extract_partition_key_clauses do the makeNode call. This
> also resulted in populate_partition_clauses being renamed to
I started wondering if it's not such a good idea to make
PartitionClauseInfo a Node at all? I went back to your earlier message
 where you said that it's put into the Append node for run-time pruning
to use, but it doesn't sound nice that we'd be putting into the plan
something that's looks more like scratchpad for the partition.c code. I
think we should try to keep PartitionClauseInfo in partition.h and put
only the list of matched bare clauses into Append.
|Next Message||Andres Freund||2018-02-02 10:08:40||Re: JIT compiling with LLVM v9.0|
|Previous Message||Pierre Ducroquet||2018-02-02 09:48:16||Re: JIT compiling with LLVM v9.1|