Hi amit-san
From: Amit Langote <amitlangote09@gmail.com>
Sent: Wednesday, May 26, 2021 9:38 AM
>
> Hou-san,
>
> On Wed, May 26, 2021 at 10:05 AM houzj.fnst@fujitsu.com
> <houzj.fnst@fujitsu.com> wrote:
> >
> > Thanks for the explanation !
> > Yeah, we can get all the parent table info from PartitionTupleRouting when
> INSERT into a partitioned table.
> >
> > But I have two issues about using the information from PartitionTupleRouting
> to get the parent table's key expression:
> > 1) It seems we do not initialize the PartitionTupleRouting when directly
> INSERT into a partition(not a partitioned table).
> > I think it will be better we let the pre-compute-key_expression
> > feature to be used in all the possible cases, because it could bring nice
> performance improvement.
> >
> > 2) When INSERT into a partitioned table which is also a partition, the
> PartitionTupleRouting is initialized after the ExecPartitionCheck.
>
> Hmm, do we really need to optimize ExecPartitionCheck() when partitions are
> directly inserted into? As also came up earlier in the thread, we want to
> discourage users from doing that to begin with, so it doesn't make much sense
> to spend our effort on that case.
>
> Optimizing ExecPartitionCheck(), specifically your idea of pre-computing the
> partition key expressions, only came up after finding that the earlier patch to
> teach ExecFindPartition() to cache partitions may benefit from it. IOW,
> optimizing ExecPartitionCheck() for its own sake does not seem worthwhile,
> especially not if we'd need to break module boundaries to make that happen.
>
> Thoughts?
OK, I see the point, thanks for the explanation.
Let try to move forward.
About teaching relcache about caching the target partition.
David-san suggested cache the partidx in PartitionDesc.
And it will need looping and checking the cached value at each level.
I was thinking can we cache a partidx list[1, 2 ,3], and then we can follow
the list to get the last partition and do the partition CHECK only for the last
partition. If any unexpected thing happen, we can return to the original table
and redo the tuple routing without using the cached index.
What do you think ?
Best regards,
houzj