Re: speeding up planning with partitions
От | David Rowley |
---|---|
Тема | Re: speeding up planning with partitions |
Дата | |
Msg-id | CAKJS1f_4GmZku-Bce+fPNx3udoqUPvxFajXZBtRZca8z6jeJ8A@mail.gmail.com обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | RE: speeding up planning with partitions ("Imai, Yoshikazu" <imai.yoshikazu@jp.fujitsu.com>) |
Ответы |
RE: speeding up planning with partitions
|
Список | pgsql-hackers |
On Fri, 8 Feb 2019 at 14:34, Imai, Yoshikazu <imai.yoshikazu@jp.fujitsu.com> wrote: > > On Wed, Feb 6, 2019 at 2:04 AM, Tsunakawa, Takayuki wrote: > > Can you compare the performance of auto and force_custom_plan again with > > the attached patch? It uses PGPROC's LOCALLOCK list instead of the hash > > table. > > Thanks for the patch, but it seems to have some problems. > When I executed create/drop/select commands to large partitions, like over than 512 partitions, backend died unexpectedly.Since I could see the difference of the performance of auto and force_custom_plan when partitions is large,patch needs to be modified to check whether performance is improved or not. It's good to see work being done to try and improve this, but I think it's best to do it on another thread. I think there was some agreement upthread about this not being Amit's patch's problem. Doing it here will make keeping track of this more complex than it needs to be. There's also Amit's issue of keeping his patch series up to date. The CFbot is really useful to alert patch authors when that's required, but having other patches posted to the same thread can cause the CFbot to check the wrong patch. -- David Rowley http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/ PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training & Services
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: