Re: [HACKERS] path toward faster partition pruning

On 11 April 2018 at 18:04, Amit Langote <Langote_Amit_f8(at)lab(dot)ntt(dot)co(dot)jp> wrote:
> Updated patch attached.

Thanks for the updated patch.

The only thing I'm not sure about is the chances you've made to the
COALESCE function.

+CREATE OR REPLACE FUNCTION pp_hashint4_noop(int4, int8) RETURNS int8 AS
+$$SELECT coalesce($1, $2)::int8$$ LANGUAGE sql IMMUTABLE;
+CREATE OPERATOR CLASS pp_test_int4_ops FOR TYPE int4 USING HASH AS
+OPERATOR 1 = , FUNCTION 2 pp_hashint4_noop(int4, int8);
+CREATE OR REPLACE FUNCTION pp_hashtext_length(text, int8) RETURNS int8 AS
+$$SELECT length(coalesce($1, ''))::int8$$ LANGUAGE sql IMMUTABLE;

Why does one default to the seed and the other to an empty string?
Shouldn't they both do the same thing? If you were to copy the
hash_part.sql you'd just coalesce($1, 0) and coalesce($1, ''), any
special reason not to do that?

Also just wondering if it's worth adding some verification that we've
actually eliminated the correct partitions by backing the tests up
with a call to satisfies_hash_partition.

I've attached a delta patch that applies to your v2 which does this.
Do you think it's worth doing?

--
David Rowley http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training & Services