| From: | Amit Langote <Langote_Amit_f8(at)lab(dot)ntt(dot)co(dot)jp> |
|---|---|
| To: | Amit Khandekar <amitdkhan(dot)pg(at)gmail(dot)com>, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>, Thomas Munro <thomas(dot)munro(at)enterprisedb(dot)com> |
| Subject: | Re: UPDATE of partition key |
| Date: | 2017-11-07 06:00:06 |
| Message-ID: | 35d668e7-e463-adc4-4da1-5040b69d26b0@lab.ntt.co.jp |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 2017/11/07 14:40, Amit Khandekar wrote:
> On 7 November 2017 at 00:33, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
>
>> Also, +1 for Amit Langote's idea of trying to merge
>> mt_perleaf_childparent_maps with mt_persubplan_childparent_maps.
>
> Currently I am trying to see if it simplifies things if we do that. We
> will be merging these arrays into one, but we are adding a new int[]
> array that maps subplans to leaf partitions. Will get back with how it
> looks finally.
One thing to note is that the int[] array I mentioned will be much faster
to compute than going to convert_tuples_by_name() to build the additional
maps array.
Thanks,
Amit
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Aleksandr Parfenov | 2017-11-07 06:18:38 | Re: Flexible configuration for full-text search |
| Previous Message | Amit Khandekar | 2017-11-07 05:40:46 | Re: UPDATE of partition key |