Re: [HACKERS] Parallel tuplesort (for parallel B-Tree index creation)

2017-09-20 Thread Rushabh Lathia
On Wed, Sep 20, 2017 at 5:17 AM, Peter Geoghegan <p...@bowt.ie> wrote: > On Tue, Sep 19, 2017 at 3:21 AM, Rushabh Lathia > <rushabh.lat...@gmail.com> wrote: > > As per the earlier discussion in the thread, I did experiment using > > BufFileSet interface from paral

Re: [HACKERS] GatherMerge misses to push target list

2017-09-18 Thread Rushabh Lathia
t 5:30 PM, Rushabh Lathia > <rushabh.lat...@gmail.com> wrote: > > On Wed, Sep 6, 2017 at 10:04 AM, Amit Kapila <amit.kapil...@gmail.com> > > wrote: > >> > > > > > > This seems like a good optimization. I tried to simulate the test given > > in

Re: [HACKERS] Parallel Hash take II

2017-10-05 Thread Rushabh Lathia
-- > Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) > To make changes to your subscription: > http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers > -- Rushabh Lathia

Re: [HACKERS] dropping partitioned tables without CASCADE

2017-09-06 Thread Rushabh Lathia
Okay, I have marked this as ready for committer. Thanks, On Wed, Sep 6, 2017 at 2:50 PM, Ashutosh Bapat < ashutosh.ba...@enterprisedb.com> wrote: > On Wed, Sep 6, 2017 at 1:06 PM, Rushabh Lathia <rushabh.lat...@gmail.com> > wrote: > > > > 2) Add partition to the fo

Re: [HACKERS] dropping partitioned tables without CASCADE

2017-09-06 Thread Rushabh Lathia
original is fine. > > > > We have used this style in the "else" case of if (!verbose). So, I > just copied it. I have removed that change in the attached patch. > > -- > Best Wishes, > Ashutosh Bapat > EnterpriseDB Corporation > The Postgres Database C

Re: [HACKERS] GatherMerge misses to push target list

2017-09-13 Thread Rushabh Lathia
add regression > tests to cover above cases in the patch. > > [1] - https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/CAA4eK1Ji_ > 0pgrjFotAyvvfxGikxJQEKcxD863VQ-xYtfQBy0uQ%40mail.gmail.com Sure, once you do that - I will review the patch. Thanks, > > > -- > With Regards, > Amit Kapila. > EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com > > > -- > Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) > To make changes to your subscription: > http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers > > -- Rushabh Lathia

Re: [HACKERS] hash partitioning based on v10Beta2

2017-08-27 Thread Rushabh Lathia
0.00..48.25 rows=25 width=4) ( > actual time=0.015..0.019 rows=1 loops=1) > Filter: ((id = 1) OR (id = 5)) > Rows Removed by Filter: 6 >-> Seq Scan on h3 (cost=0.00..48.25 rows=25 width=4) ( > actual time=0.005..0.010 rows=1 loops=1) > Filter: ((id = 1) OR (id = 5)) > Rows Removed by Filter: 3 > Planning time: 0.396 ms > Execution time: 0.139 ms > (9 rows) > > Can not detach / attach / drop partition table. > > Best regards, > young > > -- > > https://yonj1e.github.io/ > > > -- > Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) > To make changes to your subscription: > http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers > > -- Rushabh Lathia

Re: [HACKERS] Parallel Hash take II

2017-10-26 Thread Rushabh Lathia
traditional single-line output, unchanged): > > -> Hash (actual rows=100 loops=1) >Buckets: 131072 Batches: 16 Memory Usage: 3227kB >-> Seq Scan on simple s (actual rows=100 loops=1) > > (It actually says "Tuples Hashed", not "Hashed" but I edited the above > to fit on a standard punchcard.) Thoughts? > > [1] https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/CAEepm%3D2U%2B% > 2BLp3bNTv2Bv_kkr5NE2pOyHhxU%3DG0YTa4ZhSYhHiw%40mail.gmail.com > > -- > Thomas Munro > http://www.enterprisedb.com > -- Rushabh Lathia

<    1   2   3