Re: [HACKERS] path toward faster partition pruning
Ashutosh Bapat <ashutosh.bapat@enterprisedb.com>
On Fri, Dec 29, 2017 at 6:32 PM, Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@alvh.no-ip.org> wrote:
> I happened to notice that Ashutosh's patch series at
> https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/CAFjFpReJhFSoy6DqH0ipFSHd=sLNEkSzAtz4VWCaS-w2jZL=uw@mail.gmail.com
> has a 0001 patch that modifies the partition_bound_cmp stuff too.
> Are those conflicting?
>
> Ashutosh's commit message:
> Modify bound comparision functions to accept members of PartitionKey
>
> Functions partition_bound_cmp(), partition_rbound_cmp() and
> partition_rbound_datum_cmp() are required to merge partition bounds
> from joining relations. While doing so, we do not have access to the
> PartitionKey of either relations. So, modify these functions to accept
> only required members of PartitionKey so that the functions can be
> reused for merging bounds.
>
> Amit's:
> Some interface changes for partition_bound_{cmp/bsearch}
>
> Introduces a notion of PartitionBoundCmpArg, which replaces the set
> of arguments void *probe and bool probe_is_bound of both
> partition_bound_cmp and partition_bound_bsearch. It wasn't possible
> before to specify the number of datums when a non-bound type of
> probe is passed. Slightly tweaking the existing interface to allow
> specifying the same seems awkward. So, instead encapsulate that
> into PartitionBoundCmpArg. Also, modify partition_rbound_datum_cmp
> to compare caller-specifed number of datums, instead of
> key->partnatts datums.
>
I haven't looked at Amit's changes, but we need a more flexible way to
pass information required for datum comparison than using
PartitionKey, since that's not available in the optimizer and can not
be associated with join, aggregate relations. If we pass that
information through a structure, there are two ways
1. it will need to be part of PartitionScheme; I am not sure if we can
have a substructure in PartitionKey. But if we can do it that way, we
can pass that structure to the functions.
2. we will need to construct the structure filling it with comparison
information and pass it to the comparison functions. I think what we
achieve out of this isn't worth the code we will need to add.
I would prefer first approach over the other.
--
Best Wishes,
Ashutosh Bapat
EnterpriseDB Corporation
The Postgres Database Company
Commits
-
Fix assorted partition pruning bugs
- d758d9702e2f 11.0 landed
-
Make gen_partprune_steps static
- d1e2cac5ff7e 11.0 landed
-
Remove useless 'default' clause
- c775fb9e18ac 11.0 landed
-
Reorganize partitioning code
- da6f3e45ddb6 11.0 landed
-
Use custom hash opclass for hash partition pruning
- fafec4cce814 11.0 landed
-
Blindly attempt to fix sepgsql tests broken due to 9fdb675fc5.
- 4f813c7203e0 11.0 landed
-
Attempt to fix endianess issues in new hash partition test.
- 40e42e1024c5 11.0 landed
-
Faster partition pruning
- 9fdb675fc5d2 11.0 landed
-
For partitionwise join, match on partcollation, not parttypcoll.
- 2af28e603319 11.0 landed
-
Revise API for partition bound search functions.
- f724022d0ae0 11.0 landed
-
Revise API for partition_rbound_cmp/partition_rbound_datum_cmp.
- b0229235564f 11.0 landed
-
Fix possible crash in partition-wise join.
- f069c91a5793 11.0 cited
-
Refactor code for partition bound searching
- 9aef173163ae 11.0 landed
-
New C function: bms_add_range
- 84940644de93 11.0 landed
-
Add extensive tests for partition pruning.
- 8d4e70a63bf8 11.0 landed
-
Add null test to partition constraint for default range partitions.
- 7b88d63a9122 11.0 cited
-
Remove BufFile's isTemp flag.
- 11e264517dff 11.0 cited
-
Make OWNER TO subcommand mention consistent
- bf54c0f05c0a 11.0 cited
-
Fix index matching for operators with mixed collatable/noncollatable inputs.
- cb37c291060d 9.2.0 cited