From: | Ashutosh Bapat <ashutosh(dot)bapat(at)enterprisedb(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Julien Rouhaud <rjuju123(at)gmail(dot)com> |
Cc: | Yuzuko Hosoya <hosoya(dot)yuzuko(at)lab(dot)ntt(dot)co(dot)jp>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: Proposal: Partitioning Advisor for PostgreSQL |
Date: | 2018-06-12 08:10:30 |
Message-ID: | CAFjFpRe397P0vVS9BqgeK76S9WUf6KpuOsxVQN1Re3CWABRZ5g@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | Postg토토 결과SQL |
On Tue, Jun 12, 2018 at 12:21 AM, Julien Rouhaud <rjuju123(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
>
> I both like and dislike this idea. The good thing is that it's way
> less hacky than what we did in our prototype, and it's also working
> out of the box. However, the problem I have with this approach is
> that the generated plans will be quite different from real
> partitioning, The main features such as partition pruning or
> partition-wise join will probably work, but you'll always have a
> ForeignScan as the primary path and I think that it'll drastically
> limit the planner and the usability.
AFAIR, there is a hook using which we can change the EXPLAIN output,
so we could change the ForeignScan label. But I don't remember that
hook top of my head and a brief look at Explain code didn't reveal
anything. May be there isn't any hook. We may be able add one in that
case or use CustomScan or something like that. I agree that seeing a
ForeignScan in the plan is not a good thing.
Anyway, the work involved in my proposal may not be worth the utility
we get out of this extension, so may not be worth pursuing it further.
--
Best Wishes,
Ashutosh Bapat
EnterpriseDB Corporation
The Postgres Database Company
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Ideriha, Takeshi | 2018-06-12 09:05:23 | RE: ON CONFLICT DO NOTHING on pg_dump |
Previous Message | David Rowley | 2018-06-12 08:06:42 | Re: why partition pruning doesn't work? |