From: Yuzuko Hosoya <hosoya.yuzuko@lab.ntt.co.jp>
To: 'Amit Langote' <Langote_Amit_f8@lab.ntt.co.jp>
To: 'PostgreSQL Hackers' <pgsql-hackers@lists.postgresql.org>
Subject: RE: Problem with default partition pruning
Date: Wed, 27 Feb 2019 15:50:39 +0900
Message-ID: <010e01d4ce68$c0427b10$40c77130$@lab.ntt.co.jp> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <afef4fb8-c448-d54a-9628-7c26277d4895@lab.ntt.co.jp>
References: <00e601d4ca86$932b8bc0$b982a340$@lab.ntt.co.jp>
<afef4fb8-c448-d54a-9628-7c26277d4895@lab.ntt.co.jp>
Amit-san,
> From: Amit Langote [mailto:Langote_Amit_f8@lab.ntt.co.jp]
> Sent: Wednesday, February 27, 2019 11:22 AM
>
> Hosoya-san,
>
> On 2019/02/22 17:14, Yuzuko Hosoya wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> > I found the bug of default partition pruning when executing a range query.
> >
> > -----
> > postgres=# create table test1(id int, val text) partition by range
> > (id); postgres=# create table test1_1 partition of test1 for values
> > from (0) to (100); postgres=# create table test1_2 partition of test1
> > for values from (150) to (200); postgres=# create table test1_def
> > partition of test1 default;
> >
> > postgres=# explain select * from test1 where id > 0 and id < 30;
> > QUERY PLAN
> > ----------------------------------------------------------------
> > Append (cost=0.00..11.83 rows=59 width=11)
> > -> Seq Scan on test1_1 (cost=0.00..5.00 rows=58 width=11)
> > Filter: ((id > 0) AND (id < 30))
> > -> Seq Scan on test1_def (cost=0.00..6.53 rows=1 width=12)
> > Filter: ((id > 0) AND (id < 30))
> > (5 rows)
> >
> > There is no need to scan the default partition, but it's scanned.
> > -----
> >
> > In the current implement, whether the default partition is scanned or
> > not is determined according to each condition of given WHERE clause at
> > get_matching_range_bounds(). In this example, scan_default is set
> > true according to id > 0 because id >= 200 matches the default
> > partition. Similarly, according to id < 30, scan_default is set true.
> > Then, these results are combined according to AND/OR at perform_pruning_combine_step().
> > In this case, final result's scan_default is set true.
> >
> > The modifications I made are as follows:
> > - get_matching_range_bounds() determines only offsets of range bounds
> > according to each condition
> > - These results are combined at perform_pruning_combine_step()
> > - Whether the default partition is scanned or not is determined at
> > get_matching_partitions()
> >
> > Attached the patch. Any feedback is greatly appreciated.
>
> Thank you for reporting. Can you please add this to March CF in Bugs category so as not to lose
track
> of this?
>
> I will try to send review comments soon.
>
Thank you for your reply. I added this to March CF.
Regards,
Yuzuko Hosoya
NTT Open Source Software Center
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, pgsql-hackers@lists.postgresql.org
Subject: RE: Problem with default partition pruning
In-Reply-To: <010e01d4ce68$c0427b10$40c77130$@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