RE: Skip partition tuple routing with constant partition key
От | houzj.fnst@fujitsu.com |
---|---|
Тема | RE: Skip partition tuple routing with constant partition key |
Дата | |
Msg-id | OS0PR01MB57160A038A689354EE9D678294269@OS0PR01MB5716.jpnprd01.prod.outlook.com обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | RE: Skip partition tuple routing with constant partition key ("tsunakawa.takay@fujitsu.com" <tsunakawa.takay@fujitsu.com>) |
Ответы |
RE: Skip partition tuple routing with constant partition key
RE: Skip partition tuple routing with constant partition key |
Список | pgsql-hackers |
From: Tsunakawa, Takayuki <tsunakawa.takay@fujitsu.com> Sent: Monday, May 24, 2021 3:34 PM > > From: houzj.fnst@fujitsu.com <houzj.fnst@fujitsu.com> > > I think this patch can solve the performance degradation of key > > expression after applying the [Save the last partition] patch. > > Besides, this could be a separate patch which can improve some more cases. > > Thoughts ? > > Thank you for proposing an impressive improvement so quickly! Yes, I'm in > the mood for adopting Amit-san's patch as a base because it's compact and > readable, and plus add this patch of yours to complement the partition key > function case. Thanks for looking into this. > But ... > > * Applying your patch alone produced a compilation error. I'm sorry I > mistakenly deleted the compile log, but it said something like "There's a > redeclaration of PartKeyContext in partcache.h; the original definition is in > partdef.h" It seems a little strange, I have compiled it alone in two different linux machine and did not find such an error. Did you compile it on a windows machine ? > * Hmm, this may be too much to expect, but I wonder if we can make the patch > more compact... Of course, I will try to simplify the patch. Best regards, houzj
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: