| From: | Amit Khandekar <amitdkhan(dot)pg(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Ashutosh Bapat <ashutosh(dot)bapat(at)enterprisedb(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Amit Langote <Langote_Amit_f8(at)lab(dot)ntt(dot)co(dot)jp>, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, Etsuro Fujita <fujita(dot)etsuro(at)lab(dot)ntt(dot)co(dot)jp>, Thomas Munro <thomas(dot)munro(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>, Rafia Sabih <rafia(dot)sabih(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>, 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: | 2017-09-13 07:02:22 |
| Message-ID: | CAJ3gD9ctVgv6r0-7B6js7Z5uPHXx+KA5jK-3=uFsGwKOXfTddg@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Hi,
Rafia had done some testing on TPCH queries using Partition-wise join
patch along with Parallel Append patch.
There, we had observed that for query 4, even though the partition
wise joins are under a Parallel Append, the join are all non-partial.
Specifically, the partition-wise join has non-partial nested loop
joins when actually it was expected to have partial nested loop joins.
(The difference can be seen by the observation that the outer relation
of that join is scanned by non-parallel Bitmap Heap scan when it
should have used Parallel Bitmap Heap Scan).
Here is the detailed analysis , including where I think is the issue :
All the TPCH results are posted in the same above mail thread.
Thanks
-Amit
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Prabhat Sahu | 2017-09-13 07:04:28 | Re: Parallel Hash take II |
| Previous Message | Andres Freund | 2017-09-13 06:48:24 | Removing pg_standby #17. |