Antonin Houska <a...@cybertec.at> wrote:
> Jeevan Chalke <jeevan.cha...@enterprisedb.com> wrote:
> > Our work will overlap when we are pushing down the aggregate on partitioned
> > base relation to its children/partitions.
> > I think you should continue working on pushing down aggregate onto the
> > joins/scans where as I will continue my work on pushing down aggregates to
> > partitions (joins as well as single table). Once we are done with these
> > task,
> > then we may need to find a way to integrate them.
> > 
> > https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/flat/CAFjFpRfQ8GrQvzp3jA2wnLqrHmaXna-urjm_UY9BqXj=ead...@mail.gmail.com#CAFjFpRfQ8GrQvzp3jA2wnLqrHmaXna-urjm_UY9BqXj=ead...@mail.gmail.com
> My patch does also create (partial) aggregation paths below the Append node,
> but only expects SeqScan as input. Please check if you patch can be based on
> this or if there's any conflict.
Well, I haven't imposed any explicit restriction on the kind of path to be
aggregated below the Append path. Maybe the only thing to do is to merge my
patch with the "partition-wise join" patch (which I haven't checked yet).
Cybertec Schönig & Schönig GmbH
A-2700 Wiener Neustadt
Web: http://www.postgresql-support.de, http://www.cybertec.at
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (email@example.com)
To make changes to your subscription: