From: | Ashutosh Bapat <ashutosh(dot)bapat(at)enterprisedb(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Amit Langote <Langote_Amit_f8(at)lab(dot)ntt(dot)co(dot)jp> |
Cc: | Dilip Kumar <dilipbalaut(at)gmail(dot)com>, amul sul <sulamul(at)gmail(dot)com>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org>, David Rowley <david(dot)rowley(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
Subject: | Re: partition pruning doesn't work with IS NULL clause in multikey range partition case |
Date: | 2018-07-12 13:03:39 |
Message-ID: | CAFjFpRcyjkusDS6FNF6xiFj+t3KNW=ktdk8Q=uEWYXVdwUvOfw@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
I think we should add this to open items list so that it gets tracked.
On Thu, Jul 12, 2018 at 6:31 PM, Ashutosh Bapat
<ashutosh(dot)bapat(at)enterprisedb(dot)com> wrote:
> On Thu, Jul 12, 2018 at 11:10 AM, Amit Langote
> <Langote_Amit_f8(at)lab(dot)ntt(dot)co(dot)jp> wrote:
>>>
>>> I think your fix is correct. I slightly modified it along with updating
>>> nearby comments and added regression tests.
>>
>> I updated regression tests to reduce lines. There is no point in
>> repeating tests like v2 patch did.
>
> + *
> + * For hash partitioning however, it is possible to combine null and non-
> + * null keys in a pruning step, so do this only if *all* partition keys
> + * are involved in IS NULL clauses.
>
> I don't think this is true. When equality conditions and IS NULL clauses cover
> all partition keys of a hash partitioned table and do not have contradictory
> clauses, we should be able to find the partition which will remain unpruned. I
> see that we already have this supported in get_matching_hash_bounds()
> /*
> * For hash partitioning we can only perform pruning based on equality
> * clauses to the partition key or IS NULL clauses. We also can only
> * prune if we got values for all keys.
> */
> if (nvalues + bms_num_members(nullkeys) == partnatts)
> {
>
> */
> - if (!generate_opsteps)
> + if (!bms_is_empty(nullkeys) &&
> + (part_scheme->strategy != PARTITION_STRATEGY_HASH ||
> + bms_num_members(nullkeys) == part_scheme->partnatts))
>
> So, it looks like we don't need bms_num_members(nullkeys) ==
> part_scheme->partnatts there.
>
> Also, I think, we don't know how some new partition strategy will treat NULL
> values so above condition looks wrong to me. Instead it should explicitly check
> the strategies for which we know that the NULL values go to a single partition.
>
> /*
> - * Note that for IS NOT NULL clauses, simply having step suffices;
> - * there is no need to propagate the exact details of which keys are
> - * required to be NOT NULL. Hash partitioning expects to see actual
> - * values to perform any pruning.
> + * There are no OpExpr's, but there are IS NOT NULL clauses, which
> + * can be used to eliminate the null-partition-key-only partition.
>
> I don't understand this. When there are IS NOT NULL clauses for all the
> partition keys, it's only then that we could eliminate the partition containing
> NULL values, not otherwise.
>
>
> --
> Best Wishes,
> Ashutosh Bapat
> EnterpriseDB Corporation
> The Postgres Database Company
--
Best Wishes,
Ashutosh Bapat
EnterpriseDB Corporation
The Postgres Database Company
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Michael Paquier | 2018-07-12 13:08:18 | Re: Negotiating the SCRAM channel binding type |
Previous Message | Tomas Vondra | 2018-07-12 13:02:08 | Re: Binary difference in pg_internal.init after running pg_initdb multiple times |