| From: | Amit Langote <Langote_Amit_f8(at)lab(dot)ntt(dot)co(dot)jp> |
|---|---|
| To: | Rajkumar Raghuwanshi <rajkumar(dot)raghuwanshi(at)enterprisedb(dot)com> |
| Cc: | David Rowley <david(dot)rowley(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, Dilip Kumar <dilipbalaut(at)gmail(dot)com>, Beena Emerson <memissemerson(at)gmail(dot)com>, Pg Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: path toward faster partition pruning |
| Date: | 2017-11-08 08:56:12 |
| Message-ID: | 24ee4d34-71c9-12e2-688e-dda86cb83f6e@lab.ntt.co.jp |
| Views: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Hi Rajkumar,
Thanks for testing.
On 2017/11/08 15:52, Rajkumar Raghuwanshi wrote:
> On Mon, Nov 6, 2017 at 3:31 PM, Amit Langote <Langote_Amit_f8(at)lab(dot)ntt(dot)co(dot)jp>
> wrote:
>
>> Attached updated set of patches, including the fix to make the new pruning
>> code handle Boolean partitioning.
>>
>
> Hi Amit,
>
> I have tried pruning for different values of constraint exclusion GUC
> change, not sure exactly how it should behave, but I can see with the
> delete statement pruning is not happening when constraint_exclusion is off,
> but select is working as expected. Is this expected behaviour?
Hmm, the new pruning only works for selects, not DML. The patch also
changes get_relation_constraints() to not include the internal partition
constraints, but mistakenly does so for all query types, not just select.
Will look into it.
Thanks,
Amit
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Robert Haas | 2017-11-08 11:04:09 | Re: why not parallel seq scan for slow functions |
| Previous Message | Rajkumar Raghuwanshi | 2017-11-08 06:52:48 | Re: path toward faster partition pruning |