Re: PostgreSQL 12: Feature Highlights

From: Amit Langote <Langote_Amit_f8(at)lab(dot)ntt(dot)co(dot)jp>
To: "Jonathan S(dot) Katz" <jkatz(at)postgresql(dot)org>, pgsql-advocacy(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: PostgreSQL 12: Feature Highlights
Date: 2019-05-15 02:31:32
Message-ID: eab862c2-033f-56a8-198f-18427f599096@lab.ntt.co.jp
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-advocacy pgsql-hackers

Hi Jonathan,

Thanks for the updated draft.

On 2019/05/15 11:03, Jonathan S. Katz wrote:
> Without further ado:
>
> # Feature Highlights
>
> 1. Indexing
>
> - Improvements overall performance to standard (B-tree) indexes with
> writes as well as with bloat
> - REINDEX CONCURRENTLY
> - GiST indexes now support covering indexes (INCLUDE clause)
> - SP-GiST indexes now support K-NN queries
> - WAL overhead reduced on GiST, GIN, & SP-GiST index creation
>
> 2. Partitioning Improvements
>
> - Improved partition pruning, which improves performance on queries over
> tables with thousands of partitions that only need to use a few partitions
> - Improvements to COPY performance and ATTACH PARTITION
> - Allow foreign keys to reference partitioned tables

About the 1st item in "Partitioning Improvements", it's not just partition
pruning that's gotten better. How about writing as:

- Improved performance of processing tables with thousands of partitions
for operations that only need to touch a small number of partitions

Per discussion upthread, that covers improvements to both partition
pruning and tuple routing.

Also, could the title "2. Partitioning Improvements" be trimmed down to
"2. Partitioning", to look like "1. Indexing" for consistency?

Thanks,
Amit

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-advocacy by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message David Rowley 2019-05-15 02:59:48 Re: PostgreSQL 12: Feature Highlights
Previous Message Jonathan S. Katz 2019-05-15 02:03:16 Re: PostgreSQL 12: Feature Highlights

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Masahiko Sawada 2019-05-15 02:36:52 Re: vacuumdb and new VACUUM options
Previous Message Michael Paquier 2019-05-15 02:17:51 Re: Inconsistent error message wording for REINDEX CONCURRENTLY