|From:||David Rowley <david(dot)rowley(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>|
|To:||Konstantin Knizhnik <k(dot)knizhnik(at)postgrespro(dot)ru>|
|Cc:||Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de>, Thomas Munro <thomas(dot)munro(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>, Antonin Houska <ah(at)cybertec(dot)at>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org>|
|Subject:||Re: [HACKERS] Secondary index access optimizations|
|Views:||Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox|
On 12 September 2018 at 08:32, Konstantin Knizhnik
> Also the patch proposed by you is much simple and does mostly the same. Yes,
> it is not covering CHECK constraints,
> but as far as partitioning becomes now standard in Postgres, I do not think
> that much people will use old inheritance mechanism and CHECK constraints.
> In any case, there are now many optimizations which works only for
> partitions, but not for inherited tables.
I've not had time to look at your updated patch yet, but one thing I
thought about after my initial review, imagine you have a setup like:
create table listp (a int, b int) partition by list(a);
create table listp1 partition of listp for values in(1);
create index listp_a_b_idx on listp (a,b);
and a query:
select * from listp where a = 1 order by b;
if we remove the "a = 1" qual, then listp_a_b_idx can't be used.
I didn't test this in your patch, but I guess since the additional
quals are not applied to the children in set_append_rel_size() that by
the time set_append_rel_pathlist() is called, then when we go
generating the paths, the (a,b) index won't be any good.
Perhaps there's some workaround like inventing some sort of "no-op"
qual that exists in planning but never makes it way down to scans.
Although I admit to not having fully thought that idea through.
David Rowley http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training & Services
|Next Message||Ideriha, Takeshi||2018-09-12 05:16:52||RE: Protect syscache from bloating with negative cache entries|
|Previous Message||Masahiko Sawada||2018-09-12 04:45:32||Re: [HACKERS] Restricting maximum keep segments by repslots|