Re: [HACKERS] path toward faster partition pruning

From: Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>
To: Amit Langote <Langote_Amit_f8(at)lab(dot)ntt(dot)co(dot)jp>
Cc: David Rowley <david(dot)rowley(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Rajkumar Raghuwanshi <rajkumar(dot)raghuwanshi(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>, 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>, 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: 2018-02-27 16:05:14
Message-ID: CA+Tgmob1N7j0kxho-EpKp0R=LGJxH=LdE-Qj8nu=cxfAX7dzxw@mail.gmail.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On Mon, Feb 26, 2018 at 10:59 PM, Amit Langote
<Langote_Amit_f8(at)lab(dot)ntt(dot)co(dot)jp> wrote:
> You may say that partition bounds might have to be different too in this
> case and hence partition-wise join won't occur anyway, but I'm wondering
> if the mismatch of partcollation itself isn't enough to conclude that?

Yeah, you're right. I think that this is just a bug in partition-wise
join, and that the partition scheme should just be using partcollation
instead of parttypcoll, as in the attached.

--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company

Attachment Content-Type Size
partition-scheme-collation.patch application/octet-stream 1.8 KB

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Dagfinn Ilmari =?utf-8?Q?Manns=C3=A5ker?= 2018-02-27 16:27:39 Re: Reopen logfile on SIGHUP
Previous Message Claudio Freire 2018-02-27 15:54:04 Re: [HACKERS] [PATCH] Vacuum: Update FSM more frequently