pg.ddx.io pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org mailing list archive
help / color / mirror / Atom feedFrom: Andrei Lepikhov <a.lepikhov@postgrespro.ru>
To: Ashutosh Bapat <ashutosh.bapat.oss@gmail.com>
Cc: Alexander Korotkov <aekorotkov@gmail.com>
Cc: Alexander Pyhalov <a.pyhalov@postgrespro.ru>
Cc: Jaime Casanova <jcasanov@systemguards.com.ec>
Cc: Aleksander Alekseev <afiskon@gmail.com>
Cc: pgsql-hackers@lists.postgresql.org, KaiGai Kohei <kaigai@heterodb.com>
Cc: a.rybakina <a.rybakina@postgrespro.ru>
Cc: Белялов Дамир Наилевич <d.belyalov@postgrespro.ru>
Subject: Re: Asymmetric partition-wise JOIN
Date: Tue, 17 Oct 2023 15:34:59 +0700
Message-ID: <a4fe3652-a0a0-4482-8a7e-15024671b53e@postgrespro.ru> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CAExHW5vOGLD5MUW2tMTYR8pSjcT67+RVRyDy99fUSCKsdBELaA@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAOP8fzaVL_2SCJayLL9kj5pCA46PJOXXjuei6-3aFUV45j4LJQ@mail.gmail.com>
<CALtqXTfhC=FfHe0+_RP84w=X13d+z+akyN_ROCEQAyQigW7PDA@mail.gmail.com>
<163118104689.1167.8241611097516113795.pgcf@coridan.postgresql.org>
<20210909153833.GA6514@ahch-to>
<2c9caede-55c0-2042-e421-dd0021f28837@postgrespro.ru>
<792d60f4-37bc-e6ad-68ca-c2af5cbb2d9b@postgrespro.ru>
<88bc3c051d285653215393a56bdf3056@postgrespro.ru>
<CAPpHfdtm2_xM1WP1=Jyj9vRQ5jNu-kSqaoazvUp_s_7Cq0906A@mail.gmail.com>
<5c0e38e3-7ab5-4b10-a1bb-70ca69771ff0@postgrespro.ru>
<CAPpHfdvwp7cBWs=iBv7zc7e9NOWQf0TmcwNNzw=--H1qFoBcNA@mail.gmail.com>
<521c2a71-49dd-4ab5-a585-569d0af3a647@postgrespro.ru>
<CAExHW5vOGLD5MUW2tMTYR8pSjcT67+RVRyDy99fUSCKsdBELaA@mail.gmail.com>
On 16/10/2023 23:21, Ashutosh Bapat wrote:
> On Mon, Oct 16, 2023 at 10:24 AM Andrei Lepikhov
> Whenever I visited this idea, I hit one issue prominently - how would
> we differentiate different scans of the non-partitioned relation.
> Normally we do that using different Relids but in this case we
> wouldn't be able to know the number of such relations involved in the
> query unless we start planning such a join. It's late to add new base
> relations and assign them new Relids. Of course I haven't thought hard
> about it. I haven't looked at the patch to see whether this problem is
> solved and how.
>
I'm curious, which type of problems do you afraid here? Why we need a
range table entry for each scan of non-partitioned relation?
--
regards,
Andrey Lepikhov
Postgres Professional
view thread (44+ messages) latest in thread
Message-ID: <a4fe3652-a0a0-4482-8a7e-15024671b53e@postgrespro.ru>
Permalink: ../a4fe3652-a0a0-4482-8a7e-15024671b53e@postgrespro.ru/
Also on: postgresql.org/message-id/a4fe3652-a0a0-4482-8a7e-15024671b53e@postgrespro.ru
reply
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: a.lepikhov@postgrespro.ru, ashutosh.bapat.oss@gmail.com, aekorotkov@gmail.com, a.pyhalov@postgrespro.ru, jcasanov@systemguards.com.ec, afiskon@gmail.com, kaigai@heterodb.com, a.rybakina@postgrespro.ru, d.belyalov@postgrespro.ru
Subject: Re: Asymmetric partition-wise JOIN
In-Reply-To: <a4fe3652-a0a0-4482-8a7e-15024671b53e@postgrespro.ru>
* 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