| From: | Ashutosh Bapat <ashutosh(dot)bapat(at)enterprisedb(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Rafia Sabih <rafia(dot)sabih(at)enterprisedb(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, Amit Langote <Langote_Amit_f8(at)lab(dot)ntt(dot)co(dot)jp>, Rajkumar Raghuwanshi <rajkumar(dot)raghuwanshi(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Partition-wise join for join between (declaratively) partitioned tables |
| Date: | 2017-07-20 06:05:43 |
| Message-ID: | CAFjFpRecjHCLjrSi0Pr=suLvXaAxEnvXCrcmV1-r7jW7q5778g@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Wed, Jul 19, 2017 at 9:54 AM, Rafia Sabih
<rafia(dot)sabih(at)enterprisedb(dot)com> wrote:
>
> Partition information:
> Type of partitioning - single column range partition
> Tables partitioned - Lineitem and orders
>
> Lineitem -
> Partition key = l_orderkey
> No of partitions = 18
>
> Orders -
> Partition key = o_orderkey
> No of partitions = 11
>
The patch set upto 0015 would refuse to join two partitioned relations
using a partition-wise join if they have different number of
partitions. Next patches implement a more advanced partition matching
algorithm only for list partitions. Those next patches would refuse to
apply partition-wise join for range partitioned tables. So, I am
confused as to how come partition-wise join is being chosen even when
the number of partitions differ.
--
Best Wishes,
Ashutosh Bapat
EnterpriseDB Corporation
The Postgres Database Company
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Sokolov Yura | 2017-07-20 06:09:53 | Re: autovacuum can't keep up, bloat just continues to rise |
| Previous Message | Craig Ringer | 2017-07-20 05:53:32 | Re: [TRAP: FailedAssertion] causing server to crash |