Re: Dynamic Partitioning using Segment Visibility Maps
От | Gavin Sherry |
---|---|
Тема | Re: Dynamic Partitioning using Segment Visibility Maps |
Дата | |
Msg-id | 20080111092514.GT6934@europa.idg.com.au обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: Dynamic Partitioning using Segment Visibility Maps (Simon Riggs <simon@2ndquadrant.com>) |
Ответы |
Re: Dynamic Partitioning using Segment Visibility Maps
|
Список | pgsql-hackers |
On Fri, Jan 11, 2008 at 08:07:18AM +0000, Simon Riggs wrote: > On Fri, 2008-01-11 at 02:28 +0100, Gavin Sherry wrote: > > On Thu, Jan 10, 2008 at 09:30:10PM +0000, Simon Riggs wrote: > > > > > We cannot perform partition exclusion using this type of WHERE clause at > > > > > planning time because the CURRENT DATE function is STABLE. > > > > > > > > We can do the exact same thing -- if it's a direction people want to > > > > take. In fact, we can do it better/faster because once we've evaluated one > > > > partition we know that there are no others to evaluate. > > > > > > Lost you completely here. I'm explaining to you that *nobody* can solve > > > those problems solely at planning time, by definition, so it has to be > > > done at execution time. I'm not saying anything about your way, my way. > > > > Sorry, I wasn't clear enough. I was trying to say, if we're going to do > > something in the executor (for right or wrong) the declarative approach > > can do it too. Since there will be partition bounding information > > available, we can do partition selection in the executor (maybe the > > planner should tell us to do it). > > Of course. It's an identical situation for both. Regrettably, none of > your comments about dynamic partitioning and planning were accurate as a > result. That's not true. We will still have planning drive the partition selection when the predicate is immutable, thus having more accurate plans. Some but not all plans use current_date and similar. > > > Okay. As I said above, nothing in declarative partitioning rules out > > partition selection with stable functions. So, we lets do it, assuming > > everyone else thinks it is a good idea. > > If you check the archives this was long ago been identified as a > requirement. And I said exactly the things you said, BTW, when trying to > say it didn't matter. > > I've kept a list of requests for improvement that I can share with you; > I've always been loathe to publish a list of bad points. Why, please send them. Thanks, Gavin
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: