| From: | Amit Kapila <amit(dot)kapila16(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Rushabh Lathia <rushabh(dot)lathia(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: GatherMerge misses to push target list |
| Date: | 2017-09-14 04:32:14 |
| Message-ID: | CAA4eK1KG9gwPQWUC+4Up81UDYLdYX6dg688j=n2xt9uqb4+ftQ@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Wed, Sep 13, 2017 at 5:30 PM, Rushabh Lathia
<rushabh(dot)lathia(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> On Wed, Sep 6, 2017 at 10:04 AM, Amit Kapila <amit(dot)kapila16(at)gmail(dot)com>
> wrote:
>>
>
>
> This seems like a good optimization. I tried to simulate the test given
> in the mail, initially wasn't able to generate the exact test - as index
> creation is missing in the test shared.
>
Oops.
> I also won't consider this as bug, but its definitely good optimization
> for GatherMerge.
>
>>
>>
>> Note - If we agree on the problems and fix, then I can add regression
>> tests to cover above cases in the patch.
>
>
> Sure, once you do that - I will review the patch.
>
The attached patch contains regression test as well.
Thanks for looking into it.
--
With Regards,
Amit Kapila.
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
| Attachment | Content-Type | Size |
|---|---|---|
| pushdown_target_gathermerge_v2.patch | application/octet-stream | 5.4 KB |
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Rafia Sabih | 2017-09-14 04:42:59 | Re: utility commands benefiting from parallel plan |
| Previous Message | Hadi Moshayedi | 2017-09-14 04:09:15 | Re: [PATCH] Call RelationDropStorage() for broader range of object drops. |