From: | Amit Langote <amitlangote09(at)gmail(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | "kato-sho(at)fujitsu(dot)com" <kato-sho(at)fujitsu(dot)com> |
Cc: | Etsuro Fujita <etsuro(dot)fujita(at)gmail(dot)com>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: Performing partition pruning using row value |
Date: | 2020-07-08 02:53:00 |
Message-ID: | CA+HiwqEehcuW9CSMkhzAvFhVJxv_bCsxs2ZtxMr65LAji5Rgww@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Kato-san,
On Wed, Jul 8, 2020 at 10:32 AM kato-sho(at)fujitsu(dot)com
<kato-sho(at)fujitsu(dot)com> wrote:
> On Tuesday, July 7, 2020 6:31 PM Etsuro Fujita <etsuro(dot)fujita(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> > Just to be clear, the condition (c1, c2) < (99, 99) is not equivalent to the
> > condition c1 < 99 and c2 < 99 (see the documentation note in [1]).
>
> Thanks for sharing this document. I have understood.
>
> > but I don't think the main reason for that is that it takes time to parse
> > expressions.
I think the only reason that this is not supported is that I hadn't
tested such a query when developing partition pruning, nor did anyone
else suggest doing so. :)
> > Yeah, I think it's great to support row-wise comparison not only with the small
> > number of args but with the large number of them.
+1
> These comments are very helpful.
> Ok, I try to make POC that allows row-wise comparison with partition-pruning.
That would be great, thank you.
--
Amit Langote
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | torikoshia | 2020-07-08 02:55:56 | Re: Modifying data type of slot_keep_segs from XLogRecPtr to XLogSegNo |
Previous Message | David E. Wheeler | 2020-07-08 02:40:34 | Re: [HACKERS] Look-behind regular expressions |