Re: [POC] hash partitioning

From: Ashutosh Bapat <ashutosh(dot)bapat(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>
To: amul sul <sulamul(at)gmail(dot)com>
Cc: Jesper Pedersen <jesper(dot)pedersen(at)redhat(dot)com>, Amit Langote <Langote_Amit_f8(at)lab(dot)ntt(dot)co(dot)jp>, Thom Brown <thom(at)linux(dot)com>, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, Dilip Kumar <dilipbalaut(at)gmail(dot)com>, Yugo Nagata <nagata(at)sraoss(dot)co(dot)jp>, David Steele <david(at)pgmasters(dot)net>, Greg Stark <stark(at)mit(dot)edu>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: [POC] hash partitioning
Date: 2017-10-16 09:06:01
Message-ID: CAFjFpRdDtHR0cheCR5Z-cKWiYB6Wu0fP4gYvpizR2bMKvB_1uw@mail.gmail.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On Tue, Oct 10, 2017 at 4:37 PM, amul sul <sulamul(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 10, 2017 at 3:42 PM, Ashutosh Bapat
> <ashutosh(dot)bapat(at)enterprisedb(dot)com> wrote:
>> On Tue, Oct 10, 2017 at 3:32 PM, amul sul <sulamul(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
>>
>>>> + hash_part? true : key->parttypbyval[j],
>>>> + key->parttyplen[j]);
>>>> parttyplen is the length of partition key attribute, whereas what you want here
>>>> is the length of type of modulus and remainder. Is that correct? Probably we
>>>> need some special handling wherever parttyplen and parttypbyval is used e.g. in
>>>> call to partition_bounds_equal() from build_joinrel_partition_info().
>>>>
>>>
>>> Unless I am missing something, I don't think we should worry about parttyplen
>>> because in the datumCopy() when the datatype is pass-by-value then typelen
>>> is ignored.
>>
>> That's true, but it's ugly, passing typbyvalue of one type and len of other.
>>
>
> How about the attached patch(0003)?
> Also, the dim variable is renamed to natts.

Probably we should move changes to partition_bounds_copy() in 0003 to
0001, whose name suggests so.

--
Best Wishes,
Ashutosh Bapat
EnterpriseDB Corporation
The Postgres Database Company

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Masahiko Sawada 2017-10-16 09:32:07 Re: GUC for cleanup indexes threshold.
Previous Message Michael Paquier 2017-10-16 08:58:03 Re: [BUGS] Bug in Physical Replication Slots (at least 9.5)?