On Fri, Sep 13, 2019 at 1:50 PM Fabien COELHO <coe...@cri.ensmp.fr> wrote:
> >>> Is there a reason why we treat "partitions = 0" as a valid value?
> >>
> >> Yes. It is an explicit "do not create partitioned tables", which differ
> >> from 1 which says "create a partitionned table with just one partition".
> >
> > Why would anyone want to use --partitions option in the first case
> > ("do not create partitioned tables")?
>
> Having an explicit value for the default is generally a good idea, eg for
> a script to tests various partitioning settings:
>
> for nparts in 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ; do
> pgbench -i --partitions=$nparts ... ;
> ...
> done
>
> Otherwise you would need significant kludging to add/remove the option.
> Allowing 0 does not harm anyone.
>
> Now if the consensus is to remove an explicit 0, it is simple enough to
> change it, but my opinion is that it is better to have it.
>
Fair enough, let us see if anyone else wants to weigh in.
> >>> I think we should print the information about partitions in
> >>> printResults. It can help users while analyzing results.
> >
> > + res = PQexec(con,
> > + "select p.partstrat, count(*) "
> > + "from pg_catalog.pg_class as c "
> > + "left join pg_catalog.pg_partitioned_table as p on (p.partrelid = c.oid) "
> > + "left join pg_catalog.pg_inherits as i on (c.oid = i.inhparent) "
> > + "where c.relname = 'pgbench_accounts' "
> > + "group by 1, c.oid");
> >
> > Can't we write this query with inner join instead of left join? What
> > additional purpose you are trying to serve by using left join?
>
> I'm ensuring that there is always a one line answer, whether it is
> partitioned or not. Maybe the count(*) should be count(something in p) to
> get 0 instead of 1 on non partitioned tables, though, but this is hidden
> in the display anyway.
>
Sure, but I feel the code will be simplified. I see no reason for
using left join here.
> > +partition_method_t partition_method = PART_NONE;
> >
> > It is better to make this static.
>
> I do agree, but this would depart from all other global variables around
> which are currently not static.
>
Check QueryMode.
> Maybe a separate patch could turn them all
> as static, but ISTM that this patch should not change the current style.
>
No need to change others, but we can do it for this one.
--
With Regards,
Amit Kapila.
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
