| From: | Ashutosh Bapat <ashutosh(dot)bapat(at)enterprisedb(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>, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Amit Langote <amitlangote09(at)gmail(dot)com>, Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)alvh(dot)no-ip(dot)org>, "pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: [HACKERS] path toward faster partition pruning |
| Date: | 2018-04-11 09:44:02 |
| Message-ID: | CAFjFpRd=cLFQNKgBd56PikJcqgP7SBCV7mqXEgZB3R_5BRR7WA@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Wed, Apr 11, 2018 at 2:52 PM, Amit Langote
<Langote_Amit_f8(at)lab(dot)ntt(dot)co(dot)jp> wrote:
>>
>> I've attached a delta patch that applies to your v2 which does this.
>> Do you think it's worth doing?
>
> We can see check by inspection that individual values are in appropriate
> partitions, which is the point of having the inserts and the select just
> above the actual pruning related tests. So, I'm not sure if adding the
> satisfies_hash_partition against each pruning tests adds much.
+1.
--
Best Wishes,
Ashutosh Bapat
EnterpriseDB Corporation
The Postgres Database Company
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Suhal Vemu | 2018-04-11 09:47:49 | Re: ERROR: invalid memory alloc request size 1073741824 |
| Previous Message | Amit Langote | 2018-04-11 09:22:04 | Re: [HACKERS] path toward faster partition pruning |