| From: | Jesper Pedersen <jesper(dot)pedersen(at)redhat(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | amul sul <sulamul(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Amit Langote <Langote_Amit_f8(at)lab(dot)ntt(dot)co(dot)jp>, Thom Brown <thom(at)linux(dot)com>, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, Dilip Kumar <dilipbalaut(at)gmail(dot)com>, Yugo Nagata <nagata(at)sraoss(dot)co(dot)jp>, Ashutosh Bapat <ashutosh(dot)bapat(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>, David Steele <david(at)pgmasters(dot)net>, Greg Stark <stark(at)mit(dot)edu>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: [POC] hash partitioning |
| Date: | 2017-10-06 12:05:51 |
| Message-ID: | bd754e7c-24da-7f9a-7e25-47383d2f4b71@redhat.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Hi Amul,
On 09/28/2017 05:56 AM, amul sul wrote:
> It does not really do the partition pruning via constraint exclusion and I don't
> think anyone is going to use the remainder in the where condition to fetch
> data and hash partitioning is not meant for that.
>
> But I am sure that we could solve this problem using your and Beena's work
> toward faster partition pruning[1] and Runtime Partition Pruning[2].
>
> Will think on this changes if it is required for the pruning feature.
>
Could you rebase on latest master ?
Best regards,
Jesper
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | tushar | 2017-10-06 12:19:26 | parallel worker (PID ) exited with exit code 1 |
| Previous Message | Ashutosh Bapat | 2017-10-06 11:47:41 | Re: Partition-wise join for join between (declaratively) partitioned tables |