From: | David Rowley <dgrowleyml(at)gmail(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Amit Langote <amitlangote09(at)gmail(dot)com> |
Cc: | Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: First draft of the PG 15 release notes |
Date: | 2022-05-19 05:55:54 |
Message-ID: | CAApHDvrF1B+hqX7TqVxw39TwHeqp=RDem0sef0_zUR0Phfam2A@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Thu, 19 May 2022 at 14:41, Amit Langote <amitlangote09(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> Though a bit late given beta is now wrapped, I have another partition
> item wording improvement suggestion:
>
> -Previously, a partitioned table with any LIST partition containing
> multiple values could not be used for ordered partition scans. Now
> only non-pruned LIST partitions are checked. This also helps with
> -partitioned tables with DEFAULT partitions.
>
> +Previously, an ordered partition scan would not be considered for a
> LIST-partitioned table with any partition containing multiple values,
> nor for partitioned tables with DEFAULT partition.
I think your proposed wording does not really improve things. The
"Now only non-pruned LIST partitions are checked" is important and I
think Bruce did the right thing to mention that. Prior to this change,
ordered scans were not possible if there was a DEFAULT or if any LIST
partition allowed >1 value. Now, if the default partition is pruned
and there are no non-pruned partitions that allow Datum values that
are inter-mixed with ones from another non-pruned partition, then an
ordered scan can be performed.
For example, non-pruned partition a allows IN(1,3), and non-pruned
partition b allows IN(2,4), we cannot do the ordered scan. With
IN(1,2), IN(3,4), we can.
David
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Peter Smith | 2022-05-19 06:22:08 | Re: Perform streaming logical transactions by background workers and parallel apply |
Previous Message | David Rowley | 2022-05-19 05:16:05 | Re: weird comments in Memoize nodes |