|From:||Dilip Kumar <dilipbalaut(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>, Pg Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>|
|Subject:||Re: path toward faster partition pruning|
|Views:||Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox|
I have done some refactoring of the code where I have moved the code
of getting the matching clause into the separate function so that it
can fetch the matching clause from any set of given restriction list.
It can be applied on top of 0002-WIP:
On Sat, Sep 16, 2017 at 3:13 PM, Dilip Kumar <dilipbalaut(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> On Fri, Sep 15, 2017 at 2:20 PM, Amit Langote
> <Langote_Amit_f8(at)lab(dot)ntt(dot)co(dot)jp> wrote:
>> On 2017/09/15 11:16, Amit Langote wrote:
> Thanks for the updated patch. I was going through the logic of
> get_rel_partitions in 0002 as almost similar functionality will be
> required by runtime partition pruning on which Beena is working. The
> only difference is that here we are processing the
> "rel->baserestrictinfo" and in case of runtime pruning, we also need
> to process join clauses which are pushed down to appendrel.
> So can we make some generic logic which can be used for both the patches.
> So basically, we need to do two changes
> 1. In get_rel_partitions instead of processing the
> "rel->baserestrictinfo" we can take clause list as input that way we
> can pass any clause list to this function.
> 2. Don't call "get_partitions_for_keys" routine from the
> "get_rel_partitions", instead, get_rel_partitions can just prepare
> minkey, maxkey and the caller of the get_rel_partitions can call
> get_partitions_for_keys, because for runtime pruning we need to call
> get_partitions_for_keys at runtime.
> After these changes also there will be one problem that the
> get_partitions_for_keys is directly fetching the "rightop->constvalue"
> whereas, for runtime pruning, we need to store rightop itself and
> calculate the value at runtime by param evaluation, I haven't yet
> thought how can we make this last part generic.
> Dilip Kumar
> EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
|Next Message||Michael Paquier||2017-09-19 11:37:01||Re: Rewriting the test of pg_upgrade as a TAP test|
|Previous Message||Rushabh Lathia||2017-09-19 10:21:29||Re: Parallel tuplesort (for parallel B-Tree index creation)|