From: Justin Pryzby <pryzby@telsasoft.com>
To: Soumyadeep Chakraborty <soumyadeep2007@gmail.com>
Cc: Konstantin Knizhnik <k.knizhnik@postgrespro.ru>
Cc: David Rowley <dgrowleyml@gmail.com>
Cc: pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org>
Subject: Re: avoid bitmapOR-ing indexes with scan condition inconsistent with partition constraint
Date: Tue, 13 Oct 2020 15:20:31 -0500
Message-ID: <20201013202031.GP9241@telsasoft.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CAE-ML+-4EdeqH2cAYkYM9rBQasaZaGfxYbCNBe+adZvPH-wihg@mail.gmail.com>
References: <20200704004503.GA23805@telsasoft.com>
<20200715001749.GU23581@telsasoft.com>
<20200803181223.GC28072@telsasoft.com>
<CAE-ML+-4EdeqH2cAYkYM9rBQasaZaGfxYbCNBe+adZvPH-wihg@mail.gmail.com>
On Wed, Sep 30, 2020 at 04:52:02PM -0700, Soumyadeep Chakraborty wrote:
> Hi Justin,
>
> Attached is a minimal patch that is rebased and removes the
> dependency on Konstantin's earlier patch[1], making it enough to remove
> the extraneous index scans as Justin brought up. Is this the direction we
> want to head in?
Yes, thanks for doing that. I hadn't dug into it yet to figure out what to put
where to separate the patches. It seems like my patch handles a different goal
than Konstantin's, but they both depend on having the constraints populated.
--
Justin
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: pryzby@telsasoft.com, soumyadeep2007@gmail.com, k.knizhnik@postgrespro.ru, dgrowleyml@gmail.com
Subject: Re: avoid bitmapOR-ing indexes with scan condition inconsistent with partition constraint
In-Reply-To: <20201013202031.GP9241@telsasoft.com>
* 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