On 10 April 2018 at 20:56, Amit Langote <langote_amit...@lab.ntt.co.jp> wrote:
> On 2018/04/10 13:27, Ashutosh Bapat wrote:
>> On Mon, Apr 9, 2018 at 8:56 PM, Robert Haas <robertmh...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> CREATE OR REPLACE FUNCTION hashint4_noop(int4, int8) RETURNS int8 AS
>>> $$SELECT coalesce($1,0)::int8$$ LANGUAGE sql IMMUTABLE;
>>> OPERATOR 1 = , FUNCTION 2 hashint4_noop(int4, int8);
>>> CREATE TABLE mchash (a int, b text, c jsonb)
>>>   PARTITION BY HASH (a test_int4_ops, b test_text_ops);
> Thanks for the idea.  I think it makes sense and also agree that alternate
> outputs approach is not perfectly reliable and maintainable.
>> +1.
> Attached find a patch that rewrites hash partition pruning tests that
> away.  It creates two hash operator classes, one for int4 and another for
> text type and uses them to create hash partitioned table to be used in the
> tests, like done in the existing tests in hash_part.sql.  Since that makes
> tests (hopefully) reliably return the same result always, I no longer see
> the need to keep them in a separate partition_prune_hash.sql.  The
> reasoning behind having the separate file was to keep the alternative
> output file small as David explained in [1].
> [1]
> https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/CAKJS1f-SON_hAekqoV4_WQwJBtJ_rvvSe68jRNhuYcXqQ8PoQg%40mail.gmail.com

I had a quick look, but I'm still confused about why a function like
hash_uint32_extended() is susceptible to varying results depending on
CPU endianness but hash_combine64 is not.

Apart from that confusion, looking at the patch:

+CREATE OR REPLACE FUNCTION pp_hashint4_noop(int4, int8) RETURNS int8 AS
+$$SELECT coalesce($1)::int8$$ LANGUAGE sql IMMUTABLE STRICT;
+OPERATOR 1 = , FUNCTION 2 pp_hashint4_noop(int4, int8);
+CREATE OR REPLACE FUNCTION pp_hashtext_length(text, int8) RETURNS int8 AS
+$$SELECT length(coalesce($1))::int8$$ LANGUAGE sql IMMUTABLE STRICT;

Why coalesce here? Maybe I've not thought of something, but coalesce
only seems useful to me if there's > 1 argument. Plus the function is
strict, so not sure it's really doing even if you added a default.

I know this one was there before, but I only just noticed it:

+-- pruning should work if non-null values are provided for all the keys
+explain (costs off) select * from hp where a is null and b is null;

The comment is a bit misleading given the first test below it is
testing for nulls. Maybe it can be changed to

+-- pruning should work if values or is null clauses are provided for
all partition keys.

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

Reply via email to