From: | Etsuro Fujita <fujita(dot)etsuro(at)lab(dot)ntt(dot)co(dot)jp> |
---|---|
To: | Ashutosh Bapat <ashutosh(dot)bapat(at)enterprisedb(dot)com> |
Cc: | Rajkumar Raghuwanshi <rajkumar(dot)raghuwanshi(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: Expression errors with "FOR UPDATE" and postgres_fdw with partition wise join enabled. |
Date: | 2018-07-09 11:35:34 |
Message-ID: | 5B434886.9010107@lab.ntt.co.jp |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
(2018/07/09 20:06), Ashutosh Bapat wrote:
> On Mon, Jul 9, 2018 at 4:33 PM, Etsuro Fujita
> <fujita(dot)etsuro(at)lab(dot)ntt(dot)co(dot)jp> wrote:
>>> As I said, we do spend cycles in that function testing whether a node
>>> is Aggref or not even when the query doesn't have aggregates or
>>> grouping OR spend cycles in testing whether a node is a PlaceHolderVar
>>> when the query doesn't produce any. So, I don't see any problem with
>>> spending a few cycles testing whether a node is ConvertRowtypeExpr or
>>> not when a ConvertRowtypeExpr is not in the query or command. That's
>>> not a huge performance trouble. I would be happy to change my mind, if
>>> you show me performance different with and without this patch in
>>> planning. I haven't seen any.
>>
>>
>> I have to admit that the case in [1] wouldn't affect the performance, but my
>> concern is that there might be some cases where the test affects
>> performance.
>
> What are those cases? Can you please provide any numbers supporting your claim?
I don't have any numbers right now, so that is nothing but a concern.
But as I said in a previous email, in the approach I proposed, we don't
need to spend extra cycles where partitioning is not involved. I think
that is a good thing in itself. No?
Best regards,
Etsuro Fujita
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Amit Kapila | 2018-07-09 11:36:32 | Re: Concurrency bug in UPDATE of partition-key |
Previous Message | Alexander Kuzmenkov | 2018-07-09 11:28:46 | Re: Generating partitioning tuple conversion maps faster |