From: Yuzuko Hosoya <hosoya.yuzuko@lab.ntt.co.jp>
To: 'Amit Langote' <Langote_Amit_f8@lab.ntt.co.jp>
To: 'Thibaut' <thibaut.madelaine@dalibo.com>
To: 'Imai, Yoshikazu' <imai.yoshikazu@jp.fujitsu.com>
Cc: 'PostgreSQL Hackers' <pgsql-hackers@lists.postgresql.org>
Subject: RE: Problem with default partition pruning
Date: Tue, 19 Mar 2019 16:01:09 +0900
Message-ID: <003501d4de21$8816f540$9844dfc0$@lab.ntt.co.jp> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <9bed6b79-f264-6976-b880-e2a5d23e9d85@lab.ntt.co.jp>
References: <00e601d4ca86$932b8bc0$b982a340$@lab.ntt.co.jp>
<afef4fb8-c448-d54a-9628-7c26277d4895@lab.ntt.co.jp>
<010e01d4ce68$c0427b10$40c77130$@lab.ntt.co.jp>
<0F97FA9ABBDBE54F91744A9B37151A5129A78A@g01jpexmbkw24>
<a4968068-6401-7a9c-8bd4-6a3bc9164a86@dalibo.com>
<001901d4daf5$1ef4f640$5cdee2c0$@lab.ntt.co.jp>
<9bed6b79-f264-6976-b880-e2a5d23e9d85@lab.ntt.co.jp>
Hi Amit-san,
From: Amit Langote [mailto:Langote_Amit_f8@lab.ntt.co.jp]
Sent: Monday, March 18, 2019 6:44 PM
> Hosoya-san,
>
> On 2019/03/15 15:05, Yuzuko Hosoya wrote:
> > Indeed, it's problematic. I also did test and I found that this
> > problem was occurred when any partition didn't match WHERE clauses.
> > So following query didn't work correctly.
> >
> > # explain select * from test1_3 where (id > 0 and id < 30);
> > QUERY PLAN
> > -----------------------------------------------------------------
> > Append (cost=0.00..58.16 rows=12 width=36)
> > -> Seq Scan on test1_3_1 (cost=0.00..29.05 rows=6 width=36)
> > Filter: ((id > 0) AND (id < 30))
> > -> Seq Scan on test1_3_2 (cost=0.00..29.05 rows=6 width=36)
> > Filter: ((id > 0) AND (id < 30))
> > (5 rows)
> >
> > I created a new patch to handle this problem, and confirmed the query
> > you mentioned works as expected
> >
> > # explain select * from test1 where (id > 0 and id < 30) or (id > 220 and id < 230);
> > QUERY PLAN
> > ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> > ----- Append (cost=0.00..70.93 rows=26 width=36)
> > -> Seq Scan on test1_1_1 (cost=0.00..35.40 rows=13 width=36)
> > Filter: (((id > 0) AND (id < 30)) OR ((id > 220) AND (id < 230)))
> > -> Seq Scan on test1_3_1 (cost=0.00..35.40 rows=13 width=36)
> > Filter: (((id > 0) AND (id < 30)) OR ((id > 220) AND (id <
> > 230)))
> > (5 rows)
> >
> > v2 patch attached.
> > Could you please check it again?
>
> I think the updated patch breaks the promise that get_matching_range_bounds won't set scan_default
> based on individual pruning value comparisons. How about the attached delta patch that applies on
> top of your earlier v1 patch, which fixes the issue reported by Thibaut?
>
Indeed. I agreed with your proposal.
Also, I confirmed your patch works correctly.
Best regards,
Yuzuko Hosoya
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Reply to all the recipients using the --to and --cc options:
reply via email
To: pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org
Cc: hosoya.yuzuko@lab.ntt.co.jp, Langote_Amit_f8@lab.ntt.co.jp, thibaut.madelaine@dalibo.com, imai.yoshikazu@jp.fujitsu.com, pgsql-hackers@lists.postgresql.org
Subject: RE: Problem with default partition pruning
In-Reply-To: <003501d4de21$8816f540$9844dfc0$@lab.ntt.co.jp>
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
This inbox is served by DDX for PostgreSQL; see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox