At Thu, 31 Mar 2016 14:51:02 -0400, Tom Lane wrote in
<19589.1459450...@sss.pgh.pa.us>
> Kyotaro HORIGUCHI writes:
> > Thank you for the comment. The new version is attached.
>
> Committed with rather heavy editorialization and a batch of regression
> test cases.
>
> rega
Kyotaro HORIGUCHI writes:
> Thank you for the comment. The new version is attached.
Committed with rather heavy editorialization and a batch of regression
test cases.
regards, tom lane
--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make change
Thank you for the comment. The new version is attached.
Some issues has not been addressed but the rest will be addresses
in the next version.
At Thu, 31 Mar 2016 08:42:50 +0200, Tomas Vondra
wrote in <90d885f2-e5ce-6668-226f-c817154e4...@2ndquadrant.com>
> On 03/31/2016 01:36 AM, Tom Lane wrot
Hi,
At Wed, 30 Mar 2016 15:40:24 +0200, Tomas Vondra
wrote in <8ad11fae-1cb7-2255-d80c-d1daafb53...@2ndquadrant.com>
> FWIW the break was restored in the v9 by me.
Yeah, I know it. Sorry for the misleading comment.
> > FWIW, as mentioned upthread, I added the following condition to
> > decline
On 03/31/2016 01:36 AM, Tom Lane wrote:
Kevin Grittner writes:
I'm taking my name off as committer and marking it "Ready for
Committer". If someone else wants to comment on the issues where
Tom and Kyotaro-san still seem unsatisfied to the point where I
can get my head around it, I could maybe
Kevin Grittner writes:
> I'm taking my name off as committer and marking it "Ready for
> Committer". If someone else wants to comment on the issues where
> Tom and Kyotaro-san still seem unsatisfied to the point where I
> can get my head around it, I could maybe take it back on as
> committer --
On Wed, Mar 30, 2016 at 8:40 AM, Tomas Vondra
wrote:
>> ===
>> @@ -2697,6 +2697,7 @@ check_partial_indexes(PlannerInfo *root, RelOptInfo
>> *rel)
>> continue; /* don't repeat
>> work if already proven OK */
>>
>> have_partial = true;
>
Hi,
On 03/30/2016 06:01 AM, Kyotaro HORIGUCHI wrote:
Thank you for polishing this.
At Tue, 29 Mar 2016 13:31:19 -0500, Kevin Grittner wrote in
I tried to whip this into shape, but there were a few areas I
didn't feel I had the necessary understanding to feel comfortable
taking on the commit
Thank you for polishing this.
At Tue, 29 Mar 2016 13:31:19 -0500, Kevin Grittner wrote in
> I tried to whip this into shape, but there were a few areas I
> didn't feel I had the necessary understanding to feel comfortable
> taking on the committer role for it. I've cleaned it up the best I
> c
I tried to whip this into shape, but there were a few areas I
didn't feel I had the necessary understanding to feel comfortable
taking on the committer role for it. I've cleaned it up the best I
could, fixing whitespace and typos, eliminating an unnecessary
addition of an include, improving C comm
Hi,
On 03/09/2016 09:29 AM, Kyotaro HORIGUCHI wrote:
Hello, thank you for the comments. The new v8 patch is attched.
I've looked at v8, and I do have a few minor comments:
1) indxpath.c uses get_plan_rowmark without including optimizer/prep.h
so the compiler complains about missing prototype
On 3/9/16 3:29 AM, Kyotaro HORIGUCHI wrote:
> Hello, thank you for the comments. The new v8 patch is attched.
As far as I can see this patch should be marked "ready for review" so
now it is.
Thanks,
--
-David
da...@pgmasters.net
--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresq
Thank for changing status.
At Wed, 16 Mar 2016 12:13:07 -0400, David Steele wrote in
<56e98613.5000...@pgmasters.net>
> On 3/9/16 3:29 AM, Kyotaro HORIGUCHI wrote:
>
> > Hello, thank you for the comments. The new v8 patch is attched.
>
> As far as I can see this patch should be marked "ready f
Sorry, I should correct one point.
At Wed, 09 Mar 2016 17:29:49 +0900 (Tokyo Standard Time), Kyotaro HORIGUCHI
wrote in
<20160309.172949.8413.horiguchi.kyot...@lab.ntt.co.jp>
> Hello, thank you for the comments. The new v8 patch is attched.
>
> At Tue, 08 Mar 2016 18:08:55 -0500, Tom Lane
Hello, thank you for the comments. The new v8 patch is attched.
At Tue, 08 Mar 2016 18:08:55 -0500, Tom Lane wrote in
<21567.1457478...@sss.pgh.pa.us>
> Kyotaro HORIGUCHI writes:
> > Hello, This is a (maybe) committer-ready patch of a Tomas
> > Vondra's project.
>
> I think this needs quite a
Kyotaro HORIGUCHI writes:
> Hello, This is a (maybe) committer-ready patch of a Tomas
> Vondra's project.
I think this needs quite a bit of work yet. A few comments:
* If we're going to pay the price of identifying implied restriction
conditions in check_partial_indexes(), we should at least re
On Sat, Feb 27, 2016 at 6:19 PM, Michael Paquier
wrote:
> On Sat, Feb 27, 2016 at 1:08 AM, Robert Haas wrote:
>> On Fri, Feb 26, 2016 at 6:16 PM, Michael Paquier
>> wrote:
>>> On Fri, Feb 26, 2016 at 4:18 PM, Kyotaro HORIGUCHI
>>> wrote:
I marked this as "ready for commiter" and tried to a
On Sat, Feb 27, 2016 at 1:08 AM, Robert Haas wrote:
> On Fri, Feb 26, 2016 at 6:16 PM, Michael Paquier
> wrote:
>> On Fri, Feb 26, 2016 at 4:18 PM, Kyotaro HORIGUCHI
>> wrote:
>>> I marked this as "ready for commiter" and tried to add me as the
>>> *second* author. But the CF app forces certain
On Fri, Feb 26, 2016 at 6:16 PM, Michael Paquier
wrote:
> On Fri, Feb 26, 2016 at 4:18 PM, Kyotaro HORIGUCHI
> wrote:
>> I marked this as "ready for commiter" and tried to add me as the
>> *second* author. But the CF app forces certain msyterious order
>> for listed names. Is there any means to a
On Fri, Feb 26, 2016 at 4:18 PM, Kyotaro HORIGUCHI
wrote:
> I marked this as "ready for commiter" and tried to add me as the
> *second* author. But the CF app forces certain msyterious order
> for listed names. Is there any means to arrange the author names
> in desired order?
Those are automatic
I marked this as "ready for commiter" and tried to add me as the
*second* author. But the CF app forces certain msyterious order
for listed names. Is there any means to arrange the author names
in desired order?
At Fri, 26 Feb 2016 16:06:37 +0900 (Tokyo Standard Time), Kyotaro HORIGUCHI
wrote in
Hello, This is a (maybe) committer-ready patch of a Tomas
Vondra's project.
This patch applies on the current master and passes make check.
This is to exclude some base-estrict clauses that are implied by
index predicates on index scans on partial indexes.
First, this patch adds a new member ind
Hi,
At Thu, 25 Feb 2016 12:22:45 +0100, Tomas Vondra
wrote in <56cee405.30...@2ndquadrant.com>
> >> Attached is a v6 of the patch, which is actually the version
> >> submitted by Kyotaro-san on 2015/10/8 rebased to current master and
> >> with two additional changes.
> >
> > This relies on the f
Hi,
On 02/25/2016 11:56 AM, Kyotaro HORIGUCHI wrote:
Hello, Tomas. my cerebral cortext gets squeezed by jumping from
parser to planner.
LOL
At Wed, 24 Feb 2016 01:13:22 +0100, Tomas Vondra wrote
in <56ccf5a2.5040...@2ndquadrant.com>
Hi,
On 12/06/2015 11:48 PM, Tomas Vondra wrote:
/
Hello, Tomas. my cerebral cortext gets squeezed by jumping from
parser to planner.
At Wed, 24 Feb 2016 01:13:22 +0100, Tomas Vondra
wrote in <56ccf5a2.5040...@2ndquadrant.com>
> Hi,
>
> On 12/06/2015 11:48 PM, Tomas Vondra wrote:
> >/*
> > * Frequently, there will be no partial indexes,
Hi,
On 12/06/2015 11:48 PM, Tomas Vondra wrote:
/*
* Frequently, there will be no partial indexes, so first check to
* make sure there's something useful to do here.
*/
have_partial = false;
foreach(lc, rel->indexlist)
{
IndexOptInfo *index = (IndexOptInfo *) lfirst(
I have applied this patch to our working branch and during several
weeks we ran various tests and benchmarks.
We have not noticed any problems or performance degradation.
And at some queries this patch cause very significant increase of
performance - ten times:
With this patch:
postgres=# ex
Konstantin Knizhnik wrote:
> I am very interested in this patch because it allows to use partial indexes
> to ... speed up inserts.
> I have implemented "ALTER INDEX ... WHERE ..." construction which allows to
> change predicate of partial index without necessity to fully rebuild it.
> So it is n
I am very interested in this patch because it allows to use partial indexes to
... speed up inserts.
I have implemented "ALTER INDEX ... WHERE ..." construction which allows to
change predicate of partial index without necessity to fully rebuild it.
So it is not necessary to insert new records i
Tomas Vondra wrote:
> On 12/24/2015 04:05 AM, Michael Paquier wrote:
> >Tomas, are you still working on that? This thread is stalling for 3 weeks.
>
> I haven't discovered anything interesting during the testing, so I guess the
> "needs review" state is appropriate. Let's move the patch to the n
Hi,
On 12/24/2015 04:05 AM, Michael Paquier wrote:
On Mon, Dec 7, 2015 at 7:48 AM, Tomas Vondra
wrote:
...
Otherwise the reworked patch seems fine to me, but I'll give it a bit more
testing over the next few days.
Thanks for the help so far!
Tomas, are you still working on that? This th
On Mon, Dec 7, 2015 at 7:48 AM, Tomas Vondra
wrote:
> Hello Kyotaro-san,
>
> Sorry for the long delay since your response in this thread :-(
>
> On 10/14/2015 08:06 AM, Kyotaro HORIGUCHI wrote:
>>
>>
>> The table t is referred to twice by different (alias) names (though
>> the diferrence is made b
Hello Kyotaro-san,
Sorry for the long delay since your response in this thread :-(
On 10/14/2015 08:06 AM, Kyotaro HORIGUCHI wrote:
The table t is referred to twice by different (alias) names (though
the diferrence is made by EXPLAIN, it shows that they are different
rels in plantree).
So we
Hello,
At Fri, 09 Oct 2015 16:32:31 +0200, Tomas Vondra
wrote in <5617cfff.10...@2ndquadrant.com>
> Hello,
>
> On 10/09/2015 02:59 AM, Kyotaro HORIGUCHI wrote:
> >>> The cause of this seeming mismatch would be the place to hold
> >>> indexrinfos. It is determined only by baserestrictinfo and
>
Hello,
On 10/09/2015 02:59 AM, Kyotaro HORIGUCHI wrote:
The cause of this seeming mismatch would be the place to hold
indexrinfos. It is determined only by baserestrictinfo and
indpred. Any other components are not involved. So IndexClauseSet
is found not to be the best place after all, I suppos
Hello,
At Thu, 08 Oct 2015 15:24:35 +0200, Tomas Vondra
wrote in <56166e93.8000...@2ndquadrant.com>
>
>
> On 10/08/2015 07:30 AM, Kyotaro HORIGUCHI wrote:
> > Hello,
> >
> >> The attached patch applies on the latest v5 patch and will
> >> address above issues. (And modifies expected files, whi
On 10/08/2015 07:30 AM, Kyotaro HORIGUCHI wrote:
Hello,
The attached patch applies on the latest v5 patch and will
address above issues. (And modifies expected files, which are the
manifestation of this improovement).
As you see, it is a quite bad choice. Ugly and unreadable and
fragile.
Hello,
> The attached patch applies on the latest v5 patch and will
> address above issues. (And modifies expected files, which are the
> manifestation of this improovement).
As you see, it is a quite bad choice. Ugly and unreadable and
fragile.
The cause of this seeming mismatch would be the pl
Hello,
At Thu, 01 Oct 2015 01:36:51 +0200, Tomas Vondra
wrote in <560c7213.3010...@2ndquadrant.com>
> > Good point. I think we may simply point indexrinfos to the existing
> > list
> > of restrictions in that case - we don't need to copy it. So no
> > additional memory / CPU consumption, and it
On 09/30/2015 12:55 PM, Tomas Vondra wrote:
Hello!
On 09/30/2015 10:29 AM, Kyotaro HORIGUCHI wrote:
By the way your comment for indexrinfos is as following,
* 'indexrinfos' is a list of RestrictInfo nodes from the query's WHERE
* or JOIN conditions, excluding those implied by the index pre
Hello!
On 09/30/2015 10:29 AM, Kyotaro HORIGUCHI wrote:
By the way your comment for indexrinfos is as following,
* 'indexrinfos' is a list of RestrictInfo nodes from the query's WHERE
* or JOIN conditions, excluding those implied by the index predicate
* (if the index is not partial, the list
Hello, it looks fine.
> >> cost_index() seems to need to be fixed. It would count excluded
> >> clauses in estimate.
> >
> > Hmm, good point. The problem is that extract_nonindex_conditions uses
> > baserel->baserestrictinfo again, i.e. it does not skip the implied
> > clauses. So we may either st
Hello,
At Tue, 29 Sep 2015 16:57:03 +0200, Tomas Vondra
wrote in <560aa6bf.5030...@2ndquadrant.com>
> >>> The patch does not change the check_index_only implementation - it
> >>> still needs to check the clauses, just like in v1 of the patch. To
> >>> make this re-check unnecessary, we'd have to
On 09/29/2015 04:57 PM, Tomas Vondra wrote:
Hello,
On 09/29/2015 12:27 PM, Kyotaro HORIGUCHI wrote:
...
cost_index() seems to need to be fixed. It would count excluded
clauses in estimate.
Hmm, good point. The problem is that extract_nonindex_conditions uses
baserel->baserestrictinfo agai
Hello,
On 09/29/2015 12:27 PM, Kyotaro HORIGUCHI wrote:
Hi,
At Sat, 26 Sep 2015 18:00:33 +0200, Tomas Vondra wrote
in <5606c121.10...@2ndquadrant.com>
Hi,
On 09/26/2015 01:28 PM, Tomas Vondra wrote:
The patch does not change the check_index_only implementation - it
still needs to check th
Hi,
At Sat, 26 Sep 2015 18:00:33 +0200, Tomas Vondra
wrote in <5606c121.10...@2ndquadrant.com>
> Hi,
>
> On 09/26/2015 01:28 PM, Tomas Vondra wrote:
>
> > The patch does not change the check_index_only implementation - it
> > still needs to check the clauses, just like in v1 of the patch. To
>
Hi,
On 09/26/2015 01:28 PM, Tomas Vondra wrote:
The patch does not change the check_index_only implementation - it
still needs to check the clauses, just like in v1 of the patch. To
make this re-check unnecessary, we'd have to stick the remaining
clauses somewhere, so that check_index_only can
Hi,
On 09/18/2015 03:46 AM, Kyotaro HORIGUCHI wrote:
Hello,
At Thu, 17 Sep 2015 17:40:27 +0200, Tomas Vondra wrote
in <55fadeeb.4000...@2ndquadrant.com>
Yes, this seems sane. I've been poking at this a bit too, and I came
to the same plan in general, except that I think it's better to build
Hello,
At Thu, 17 Sep 2015 17:40:27 +0200, Tomas Vondra
wrote in <55fadeeb.4000...@2ndquadrant.com>
> Yes, this seems sane. I've been poking at this a bit too, and I came
> to the same plan in general, except that I think it's better to build
> list of clauses that are *not* implied by the index
Hello Horiguchi-san,
On 09/17/2015 12:45 PM, Kyotaro HORIGUCHI wrote:
After all, what should be done to properly ignore useless
conditions would be,
1. Make create_index_paths() to make the list of restrict
clauses which are implied by the index predicate of the index
in focus. The
Hi, sorry in advance for hardly readable long descriptions..
At Mon, 14 Sep 2015 13:27:47 +0200, Tomas Vondra
wrote in <55f6af33.8000...@2ndquadrant.com>
> I don't think this is particularly related to the patch, because some
> of the anomalies can be observed even on master. For example, let's
On 09/14/2015 12:51 PM, Kyotaro HORIGUCHI wrote:
I rethinked on this from the first.
Sorry.
Hi, this looks to be a bug of cost_index(). The attached patch
would fix that.
No, that's wrong. please forget the patch. The qual in qpquals
should be indexquals which is excluded because it is no
I rethinked on this from the first.
> Sorry.
>
> > Hi, this looks to be a bug of cost_index(). The attached patch
> > would fix that.
>
> No, that's wrong. please forget the patch. The qual in qpquals
> should be indexquals which is excluded because it is not
> necessary to be applied. The right
Sorry.
> Hi, this looks to be a bug of cost_index(). The attached patch
> would fix that.
No, that's wrong. please forget the patch. The qual in qpquals
should be indexquals which is excluded because it is not
necessary to be applied. The right way would be remove the cost
for qpqual in cost_inde
Hi, this looks to be a bug of cost_index(). The attached patch
would fix that.
=
The following part in cost_index,
> cpu_per_tuple = cpu_tuple_cost + qpqual_cost.per_tuple;
>
> run_cost += cpu_per_tuple * tuples_fetched;
Adds, *cpu_tuple_cost* (which is 0.01) + qpqual_cost.per_tuple
(0.0025
On 09/14/2015 09:35 AM, Kyotaro HORIGUCHI wrote:
Hi,
,,,
Which is exactly the difference between costs from amcostestimate
idx1: 4769.115000 + 0.015 * 297823 = 9236.46
idx2: 6258.23 + 0.010 * 297823 = 9236.46
These calculations are exactly right, but you overlooked the
breakedown
Hi,
At Sun, 13 Sep 2015 23:21:30 +0200, Tomas Vondra
wrote in <55f5e8da.8080...@2ndquadrant.com>
> That's indeed strange, but after poking into that for a while, it
> seems rather like a costing issue. Let me demonstrate:
...
> Now, both plans are index only scans, but the first one has Index Co
Hi,
On 09/13/2015 08:03 PM, Kevin Grittner wrote:
In my view, the most disappointing thing about the patch is that
when both indexes are present, it doesn't use the narrower one. If
*only* the narrower index is present, it runs the index-only scan
using that index for count(b) and count(*), wh
Tomas Vondra wrote:
> That means I've been unable to measure any significant overhead
> of the patch.
I've run a lot of benchmarks, and with anything resembling a common
query the differences in planning time are lost in the noise. (I
didn't create a better example than Tomas of where a lot of
Hi,
On 09/05/2015 10:53 AM, Simon Riggs wrote:
On 4 September 2015 at 22:03, Tomas Vondra mailto:tomas.von...@2ndquadrant.com>> wrote:
A summary of 100 EXPLAIN timings looks like this:
master A B C D E F
--
On 4 September 2015 at 22:03, Tomas Vondra
wrote:
> A summary of 100 EXPLAIN timings looks like this:
>
>
> master A B C D E F
> -
> min0.10 0.10 0.30
Hi,
On 09/04/2015 06:10 PM, Jeff Janes wrote:
How can we evaluate Tom's performance concerns? I tried
turning log_planner_stats on and using the regression test as a load
generator, but I don't think that that is very demanding of a test.
I've done a bit of benchmarking today, trying to meas
On Fri, Sep 4, 2015 at 4:28 AM, Anastasia Lubennikova <
a.lubennik...@postgrespro.ru> wrote:
>
>
> 25.08.2015 20:19, Jeff Janes пишет:
>
> On Fri, Jul 10, 2015 at 11:29 AM, Tomas Vondra <
> tomas.von...@2ndquadrant.com> wrote:
>
>> Hi,
>>
>> currently partial indexes end up not using index only sc
25.08.2015 20:19, Jeff Janes пишет:
On Fri, Jul 10, 2015 at 11:29 AM, Tomas Vondra
mailto:tomas.von...@2ndquadrant.com>>
wrote:
Hi,
currently partial indexes end up not using index only scans in
most cases, because check_index_only() is overly conservative, as
explained in t
On Fri, Jul 10, 2015 at 11:29 AM, Tomas Vondra wrote:
> Hi,
>
> currently partial indexes end up not using index only scans in most cases,
> because check_index_only() is overly conservative, as explained in this
> comment:
>
> * XXX this is overly conservative for partial indexes, since we will
Hi,
On 07/10/2015 10:43 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
Tomas Vondra writes:
currently partial indexes end up not using index only scans in most
cases, because check_index_only() is overly conservative, as explained
in this comment:
...
I've done a bunch of tests, and I do see small (hardly noticeable)
Tomas Vondra writes:
> currently partial indexes end up not using index only scans in most
> cases, because check_index_only() is overly conservative, as explained
> in this comment:
> ...
> I've done a bunch of tests, and I do see small (hardly noticeable)
> increase in planning time with lon
67 matches
Mail list logo
