Re: [HACKERS] path toward faster partition pruning

From: Amit Langote <Langote_Amit_f8(at)lab(dot)ntt(dot)co(dot)jp>
To: Ashutosh Bapat <ashutosh(dot)bapat(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>
Cc: Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, David Rowley <david(dot)rowley(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Rajkumar Raghuwanshi <rajkumar(dot)raghuwanshi(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>, Kyotaro HORIGUCHI <horiguchi(dot)kyotaro(at)lab(dot)ntt(dot)co(dot)jp>, Jesper Pedersen <jesper(dot)pedersen(at)redhat(dot)com>, Amit Langote <amitlangote09(at)gmail(dot)com>, Dilip Kumar <dilipbalaut(at)gmail(dot)com>, Beena Emerson <memissemerson(at)gmail(dot)com>, "pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] path toward faster partition pruning
Date: 2018-03-01 01:27:54
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On 2018/02/28 19:14, Ashutosh Bapat wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 28, 2018 at 6:42 AM, Amit Langote wrote:
>> BTW, should there be a relevant test in partition_join.sql? If yes,
>> attached a patch (partitionwise-join-collation-test-1.patch) to add one.
> A partition-wise join path will be created but discarded because of
> higher cost. This test won't see it in that case. So, please add some
> data like other tests and add command to analyze the partitioned
> tables. That kind of protects from something like that.

Thanks for the review.

Hmm, the added test is such that the partition collations won't match, so
partition-wise join won't be considered at all due to differing
PartitionSchemes, unless I'm missing something.


In response to


Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Thomas Munro 2018-03-01 01:39:10 Synchronous replay take III
Previous Message Tsunakawa, Takayuki 2018-03-01 01:26:32 [bug fix] pg_rewind creates corrupt WAL files, and the standby cannot catch up the primary