Re: speeding up planning with partitions

Hi Amit,

On 11/9/18 3:55 AM, Amit Langote wrote:
> And here are patches structured that way.  I've addressed some of the
> comments posted by Imai-san upthread.  Also, since David's patch to
> postpone PlannerInfo.total_pages calculation went into the tree earlier
> this week, it's no longer included in this set.
> 

Thanks for doing the split this way. The patch passes check-world.

I ran a SELECT test using hash partitions, and got

        Master    v5
64:    6k        59k
1024:  283       59k

The non-partitioned case gives 77k. The difference in TPS between the 
partition case vs. the non-partitioned case comes down to 
set_plain_rel_size() vs. set_append_rel_size() under 
set_base_rel_sizes(); flamegraphs for this sent off-list.

Best regards,
  Jesper