Re: [HACKERS] Partition-wise aggregation/grouping

From: Ashutosh Bapat <ashutosh(dot)bapat(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>
To: David Rowley <david(dot)rowley(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>
Cc: Konstantin Knizhnik <k(dot)knizhnik(at)postgrespro(dot)ru>, Jeevan Chalke <jeevan(dot)chalke(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] Partition-wise aggregation/grouping
Date: 2017-11-17 06:02:09
Message-ID: CAFjFpRdR3m4y58MXbn1eQcteVW7SufEMPH07zwmZvWqo_4WOpQ@mail.gmail.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On Thu, Nov 16, 2017 at 6:02 AM, David Rowley
<david(dot)rowley(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> wrote:
> On 16 November 2017 at 05:57, Konstantin Knizhnik
> <k(dot)knizhnik(at)postgrespro(dot)ru> wrote:
>> The main problem IMHO is that there are a lot of different threads and
>> patches related with this topic:(
>> And it is very difficult to combine all of them together to achieve the
>> final goal: efficient execution of OLAP queries on sharded table.
>> It will be nice if somebody who is making the most contribution in this
>> direction can somehow maintain it...
>> I just faced with particular problem with our pg_shardman extension and now
>> (thanks to your patch) I have some working solution for it.
>> But certainly I prefer to have this support in mainstream version of
>> Postgres.
>
> I don't think it's fair to be asking about additional features on this
> thread. It seems to me you're asking about two completely separate
> features, with the aim of trying to solve your own problems.
>
> It also looks to me that Jeevan has been clear on what his goals are
> for this patch. Perhaps what you're asking for is a logical direction
> to travel once this patch is committed, so I think, probably, the best
> way to conduct what you're after here is to either:
>
> a) Wait until this is committed and spin up your own thread about
> you're proposed changes to allow the PARTIAL aggregate to be pushed
> into the foreign server, or;
> b) Spin up your own thread now, with reference to this patch as a
> prerequisite to your own patch.
>
> I agree that what you're talking about is quite exciting stuff, but
> please, let's not talk about it here.
>

+1 for all that.

--
Best Wishes,
Ashutosh Bapat
EnterpriseDB Corporation
The Postgres Database Company

In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Pavel Stehule 2017-11-17 06:27:56 Re: Add PGDLLIMPORT lines to some variables
Previous Message Amit Langote 2017-11-17 05:57:56 default range partition and constraint exclusion