Re: [Sender Address Forgery]Re: [HACKERS] path toward fasterpartition pruning - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

On 6 November 2017 at 17:30, Amit Langote <Langote_Amit_f8@lab.ntt.co.jp> wrote:
> On 2017/11/03 13:32, David Rowley wrote:
>> On 31 October 2017 at 21:43, Amit Langote <Langote_Amit_f8@lab.ntt.co.jp> wrote:
>> 1. This comment seem wrong.
>>
>> /*
>> * Since the clauses in rel->baserestrictinfo should all contain Const
>> * operands, it should be possible to prune partitions right away.
>> */
>
> Yes.  I used to think it was true, then realized it isn't and updated the
> code to get rid of that assumption, but I forgot updating this comment.
> Fixed.
>
>> How about PARTITION BY RANGE (a) and SELECT * FROM parttable WHERE a > b; ?
>> baserestrictinfo in this case will contain a single RestrictInfo with
>> an OpExpr containing two Var args and it'll come right through that
>> function too.

...

> We won't be able to use such a clause for pruning at all; neither
> planning-time pruning nor execution-time pruning.  Am I missing something?

I just meant the comment was wrong.

>
> The design with min/max partition index interface to the partition.c's new
> partition-pruning facility is intentional.  You can find hints about how
> such a design came about in the following Robert's email:
>
> https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/CA%2BTgmoYcv_MghvhV8pL33D95G8KVLdZOxFGX5dNASVkXO8QuPw%40mail.gmail.com

Yeah, I remember reading that before I had looked at the code. I
disagree with Robert on this. The fact that the min/max range gets
turned into a list of everything in that range in
get_append_rel_partitions means all the advantages that storing the
partitions as a range is voided. If you could have kept it a range the
entire time, then that might be different, but seems you need to
materialize the entire range in order to sort the partitions into
order. I've included Robert in just in case he wants to take a look at
the code that resulted from that design. Maybe something is not
following what he had in mind, or maybe he'll change his mind based on
the code that resulted.


> For range queries, it is desirable for the partitioning module to return
> the set of qualifying partitions that are contiguous in a compact (O(1))
> min/max representation than having to enumerate all those indexes in the
> set.  It's nice to avoid iterating over that set twice -- once when
> constructing the set in the partitioning module and then again in the
> caller (in this case, planner) to perform the planning-related tasks per
> selected partition.

The idea is that you still get the min and max from the bsearch, but
then use bms_add_range() to populate a bitmapset of the matching
partitions. The big-O notation of the search shouldn't change.

> We need the other_parts Bitmapset too, because selected partitions may not
> always be contiguous, even in the case of range partitioning, if there are
> OR clauses and the possibility that the default partition is also
> selected.  While computing the selected partition set from a given set of
> clauses, partitioning code tries to keep the min/max representation as
> long as it makes sense to and once the selected partitions no longer
> appear to be contiguous it switches to the Bitmapset mode.

Yip. I understand that. I just think there's no benefit to having
min/max since it needs to be materialized into a list of the entire
range at some point, it might as well be done as soon as possible
using a bitmapset, which would save having all the partset_union,
partset_intersect, partset_range_empty, partset_range_overlap,
partset_range_adjacent code. You'd end up just using bms_union and
bms_intersect then bms_add_range to handle the min/max bound you get
from the bsearch.


-- David Rowley                   http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training & Services


-- 
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers