Re: non-overlapping, consecutive partitions

hello ...

yeah, this is fairly complicated.

greg:
can you send me how far you got?
i would be curious to see how you have attacked this issue.

i am still in the process of checking the codes.
we somehow have to find a solution for that. otherwise we are in slight trouble here.
it seems we have to solve it no matter what it takes.

many thanks,

hans

On Jul 26, 2010, at 1:14 AM, Robert Haas wrote:

> On Sun, Jul 25, 2010 at 6:40 PM, Greg Stark <gsstark(at)mit(dot)edu> wrote:
>> 2010/7/25 Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>:
>>> 2010/7/25 PostgreSQL - Hans-Jürgen Schönig <postgres(at)cybertec(dot)at>:
>>>>
>>>> On Jul 25, 2010, at 11:56 AM, Martijn van Oosterhout wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> I think the right way to approach this is to teach the planner about
>>>>> merge sorts.
>>
>> For what it's worth I think this is a belt-and-suspenders type of
>> situation where we want two solutions which overlap somewhat.
>>
>> I would really like to have merge-append nodes because there are all
>> sorts of plans where append nodes destroying the ordering of their
>> inputs eliminates a lot of good plans. Those cases can be UNION ALL
>> nodes, or partitions where there's no filter on the partition key at
>> all.
>>
>> But for partitioned tables like the OPs the "real" solution would be
>> to have more structured meta-data about the partitions that allows the
>> planner to avoid needing the merge at all. It would also means the
>> planner wouldn't need to look at every node; it could do a binary
>> search or equivalent for the right partitions.
>
> Agreed on all points.
>
>>> Greg Stark had a patch to do this a while back called merge append,
>>> but it never got finished...
>>
>> I was basically in over my head with the planner. I don't understand
>> how equivalent classes are used or should be used and didn't
>> understand the code I was pointed at as being analogous. It's probably
>> not so complicated as all that, but I never really wrapped my head
>> around it and moved onto tasks I could make more progress on.
>
> Yeah, I don't fully understand those either.
>
> --
> Robert Haas
> EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
> The Enterprise Postgres Company
>
> --
> Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org)
> To make changes to your subscription:
> http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
>

--
Cybertec Schönig & Schönig GmbH
Gröhrmühlgasse 26
A-2700 Wiener Neustadt
Web: http://www.postgresql-support.de