Re: [HACKERS] [POC] hash partitioning
От | Dilip Kumar |
---|---|
Тема | Re: [HACKERS] [POC] hash partitioning |
Дата | |
Msg-id | CAFiTN-sXBP4V2AC3p4dfnUpOzQDDhe=6QS-yMqeYuz+fxKMHaQ@mail.gmail.com обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: [HACKERS] [POC] hash partitioning (amul sul <sulamul@gmail.com>) |
Ответы |
Re: [HACKERS] [POC] hash partitioning
|
Список | pgsql-hackers |
On Mon, Jul 3, 2017 at 4:39 PM, amul sul <sulamul@gmail.com> wrote: > Thanks to catching this, fixed in the attached version. Few comments on the latest version. 0001 looks fine, for 0002 I have some comments. 1. + hbounds = (PartitionHashBound * *) palloc(nparts * + sizeof(PartitionHashBound *)); /s/(PartitionHashBound * *)/(PartitionHashBound **)/g 2. RelationBuildPartitionDesc { .... * catalog scan that retrieved them, whereas that in the latter is * defined by canonicalized representation of the list values or the * range bounds. */ for (i = 0; i < nparts; i++) result->oids[mapping[i]] = oids[i]; Should this comments mention about hash as well? 3. if (b1->datums[b1->ndatums - 1][0] != b2->datums[b2->ndatums - 1][0]) return false; if (b1->ndatums != b2->ndatums) return false; If ndatums itself is different then no need to access datum memory, so better to check ndatum first. 4. + * next larger modulus. For example, if you have a bunch + * of partitions that all have modulus 5, you can add a + * new new partition with modulus 10 or a new partition Typo, "new new partition" -> "new partition" -- Regards, Dilip Kumar EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: