Hi David.

On 2018/02/23 0:11, David Rowley wrote:
> On 23 February 2018 at 01:15, David Rowley <david.row...@2ndquadrant.com> 
> wrote:
>> One problem that I'm facing now is down to the way I'm gathering the
>> ParamIds that match the partkeys. As you'll see from the patch I've
>> added a 'paramids' field to PartitionPruneContext and I'm populating
>> this when the clauses are being pre-processed in
>> extract_partition_clauses(). The problem is that the or_clauses are
>> not pre-processed at all, so the current patch will not properly
>> perform run-time pruning when the Params are "hidden" in OR branches.
>> One way I thought to fix this was to change the clause processing to
>> create an array of PartitionClauseInfos, one for each OR branch. This
>> would also improve the performance of the run-time pruning, meaning
>> that all of the or clauses would be already matched to the partition
>> keys once, rather than having to redo that again each time a Param
>> changes its value.
>> If I go and write a patch to do that, would you want it in your patch,
>> or would you rather I kept it over here?  Or perhaps you have a better
>> idea on how to solve...?
> I've attached a patch which does this. For now, the patch is only
> intended to assist in the discussion of the above idea.
> The patch is based on a WIP version of run-time pruning that I'm not
> quite ready to post yet, but with a small amount of work you could
> probably take it and base it on your faster partition pruning v31
> patch [1].
> I ended up pulling the PartitionPruneInfo out of the
> PartitionPruneContext. This was required due how I've now made
> extract_partition_clauses() recursively call itself. We don't want to
> overwrite the context's clauseinfo with the one from the recursive
> call. A side effect of this is that the subcontext is no longer
> required when processing the OR clauses. You only did this so that the
> context's clauseinfo was not overwritten. I also think it's better to
> seperate out the inputs and outputs. Anything in context was more
> intended to be for input fields.
> Let me know your thoughts about this. If you don't want it for faster
> partition pruning, then I'll probably go and tidy it up and include it
> for run-time pruning.

Thanks for the patch.

I don't have time today to look at the patch closely, but at first blush,
it seems like something I should incorporate into my own patch, because
it's restructuring the partprune.c code.  I will study the issue and your
proposed solution in the form of this restructuring more closely over the
weekend and reply (probably with a new version of my patch) on Monday.


Reply via email to