Re: Problem with default partition pruning

From: Thibaut Madelaine <thibaut(dot)madelaine(at)dalibo(dot)com>
To: Yuzuko Hosoya <hosoya(dot)yuzuko(at)lab(dot)ntt(dot)co(dot)jp>, 'Amit Langote' <Langote_Amit_f8(at)lab(dot)ntt(dot)co(dot)jp>, "'Imai, Yoshikazu'" <imai(dot)yoshikazu(at)jp(dot)fujitsu(dot)com>
Cc: 'PostgreSQL Hackers' <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: Problem with default partition pruning
Date: 2019-03-19 14:58:57
Message-ID: bd03f475-30d4-c4d0-3d7f-d2fbde755971@dalibo.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers


Le 19/03/2019 à 08:01, Yuzuko Hosoya a écrit :
> Hi Amit-san,
>
> From: Amit Langote [mailto:Langote_Amit_f8(at)lab(dot)ntt(dot)co(dot)jp]
> Sent: Monday, March 18, 2019 6:44 PM
>
>> Hosoya-san,
>>
>> On 2019/03/15 15:05, Yuzuko Hosoya wrote:
>>> Indeed, it's problematic. I also did test and I found that this
>>> problem was occurred when any partition didn't match WHERE clauses.
>>> So following query didn't work correctly.
>>>
>>> # explain select * from test1_3 where (id > 0 and id < 30);
>>> QUERY PLAN
>>> -----------------------------------------------------------------
>>> Append (cost=0.00..58.16 rows=12 width=36)
>>> -> Seq Scan on test1_3_1 (cost=0.00..29.05 rows=6 width=36)
>>> Filter: ((id > 0) AND (id < 30))
>>> -> Seq Scan on test1_3_2 (cost=0.00..29.05 rows=6 width=36)
>>> Filter: ((id > 0) AND (id < 30))
>>> (5 rows)
>>>
>>> I created a new patch to handle this problem, and confirmed the query
>>> you mentioned works as expected
>>>
>>> # explain select * from test1 where (id > 0 and id < 30) or (id > 220 and id < 230);
>>> QUERY PLAN
>>> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>>> ----- Append (cost=0.00..70.93 rows=26 width=36)
>>> -> Seq Scan on test1_1_1 (cost=0.00..35.40 rows=13 width=36)
>>> Filter: (((id > 0) AND (id < 30)) OR ((id > 220) AND (id < 230)))
>>> -> Seq Scan on test1_3_1 (cost=0.00..35.40 rows=13 width=36)
>>> Filter: (((id > 0) AND (id < 30)) OR ((id > 220) AND (id <
>>> 230)))
>>> (5 rows)
>>>
>>> v2 patch attached.
>>> Could you please check it again?
>> I think the updated patch breaks the promise that get_matching_range_bounds won't set scan_default
>> based on individual pruning value comparisons. How about the attached delta patch that applies on
>> top of your earlier v1 patch, which fixes the issue reported by Thibaut?
>>
> Indeed. I agreed with your proposal.
> Also, I confirmed your patch works correctly.
>
> Best regards,
> Yuzuko Hosoya

I kept on testing with sub-partitioning.
I found a case, using 2 default partitions, where a default partition is
not pruned:

--------------

create table test2(id int, val text) partition by range (id);
create table test2_20_plus_def partition of test2 default;
create table test2_0_20 partition of test2 for values from (0) to (20)
  partition by range (id);
create table test2_0_10 partition of test2_0_20 for values from (0) to (10);
create table test2_10_20_def partition of test2_0_20 default;

# explain (costs off) select * from test2 where id=5 or id=25;
               QUERY PLAN               
-----------------------------------------
 Append
   ->  Seq Scan on test2_0_10
         Filter: ((id = 5) OR (id = 25))
   ->  Seq Scan on test2_10_20_def
         Filter: ((id = 5) OR (id = 25))
   ->  Seq Scan on test2_20_plus_def
         Filter: ((id = 5) OR (id = 25))
(7 rows)

--------------

I have the same output using Amit's v1-delta.patch or Hosoya's
v2_default_partition_pruning.patch.

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Konstantin Knizhnik 2019-03-19 15:03:21 Re: [HACKERS] Cached plans and statement generalization
Previous Message Julien Rouhaud 2019-03-19 14:51:37 Re: Feature improvement: can we add queryId for pg_catalog.pg_stat_activity view?