| From: | Amit Langote <Langote_Amit_f8(at)lab(dot)ntt(dot)co(dot)jp> |
|---|---|
| To: | Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, David Rowley <david(dot)rowley(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Jesper Pedersen <jesper(dot)pedersen(at)redhat(dot)com>, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Speeding up INSERTs and UPDATEs to partitioned tables |
| Date: | 2018-11-15 00:42:52 |
| Message-ID: | caf396ed-31f0-5cb7-67f6-f1a0bfd9cca0@lab.ntt.co.jp |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 2018/11/15 8:58, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
> On 2018-Nov-15, David Rowley wrote:
>
>> On 15 November 2018 at 07:10, Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> wrote:
>>> What's with this comment?
>>>
>>> * Initially we must only set up 1 PartitionDispatch object; the one for
>>> * the partitioned table that's the target of the command. If we must
>>> * route a tuple via some sub-partitioned table, then its
>>> * PartitionDispatch is only built the first time it's required.
>>>
>>> You're setting the allocsize to PARTITION_ROUTING_INITSIZE, which is at
>>> odds with the '1' mentioned in the comment. Which is wrong?
>>
>> I don't think either is wrong, but I guess something must be
>> misleading, so could perhaps be improved.
>
> Ah, that makes sense. Yeah, it seems a bit misleading to me. No
> worries.
Maybe name it PARTITION_INIT_ALLOCSIZE (dropping the ROUTING from it), or
PROUTE_INIT_ALLOCSIZE, to make it clear that it's only allocation size?
Thanks,
Amit
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Michael Paquier | 2018-11-15 01:04:45 | Re: ATTACH/DETACH PARTITION CONCURRENTLY |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2018-11-15 00:35:29 | Re: PostgreSQL Limits and lack of documentation about them. |