Re: PostgreSQL 12: Feature Highlights
От | Amit Langote |
---|---|
Тема | Re: PostgreSQL 12: Feature Highlights |
Дата | |
Msg-id | 0cf10a27-c6a0-de4a-cd20-ab7493ea7422@lab.ntt.co.jp обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: PostgreSQL 12: Feature Highlights (Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us>) |
Ответы |
Re: PostgreSQL 12: Feature Highlights
|
Список | pgsql-advocacy |
On 2019/05/17 3:26, Bruce Momjian wrote: > I think the more specific we make the partition description, the more > limited it will appear to be. I think almost all partition operations > will appear to be faster with PG 12, even if users can't articulate > exactly why. I agree that the current description captures at a high level the many changes that made it possible. Although, a couple of commits listed with this item don't have much to do with that description, AFAICT. Especially 959d00e9d [1], which taught the planner to leverage the ordering imposed on partitions by range partitioning. With that commit, getting ordered output from partitioned tables is now much quicker, especially with a LIMIT clause. You can tell that it sounds clearly unrelated to the description we have now, which is "processing thousands of partitions is quicker when only small numbers of partitions are touched". Some users of partitioning may not be interested in the use case described as vastly improved, but they may be delighted to hear about items such as the aforementioned commit. Also, I suspect that the users whose use cases pushed them to use partitioning in the first place may also be the ones who do some of their own research about partitioning and eventually know many optimizations that are possible with it. So, it's perhaps a good idea to let them know about such optimizations through release notes if it's the only place to put them, which I believe is the case with this particular item. There are not that many commits to be taken out of the existing item and described separately, just this one I think. That said, my intention is only to point out that the commit is being mixed with an unrelated item. Whether or not to list it as a separate item, I can only give my vote in its favor. Thanks, Amit [1] [959d00e9d] Use Append rather than MergeAppend for scanning ordered
В списке pgsql-advocacy по дате отправления: