From: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
To: Benjamin Tingle <ben@tingle.org>
Cc: pgsql-performance@postgresql.org
Subject: Re: Query Planner not taking advantage of HASH PARTITION
Date: Sun, 17 Apr 2022 14:20:24 -0400
Message-ID: <2143749.1650219624@sss.pgh.pa.us> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CABTcpyvPwQekzDfFbDAV-=B00ks76YrtbZLE-Jcb2Q5h1+JdyQ@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CABTcpyvoSYrn-2S4p8hRwAsCe3PkOUS4dFxmr6gUy4x9u5PDKA@mail.gmail.com>
<2132751.1650211749@sss.pgh.pa.us>
<CABTcpyvPwQekzDfFbDAV-=B00ks76YrtbZLE-Jcb2Q5h1+JdyQ@mail.gmail.com>
Benjamin Tingle <ben@tingle.org> writes:
> Interesting. Why is it impossible to prune hash partitions? Maybe prune
> isn’t the best word, more so use to advantage. At the very least, it should
> be possible to utilize a parallel insert against a table partitioned by
> hash. (Partition query rows, then distribute these rows to parallel workers)
Your plan-shape complaint had nothing to do with insertions; it had
to do with joining the partitioned table to another table. That
join can't be optimized.
regards, tom lane
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-performance@postgresql.org
Cc: tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us, ben@tingle.org
Subject: Re: Query Planner not taking advantage of HASH PARTITION
In-Reply-To: <2143749.1650219624@sss.pgh.pa.us>
* 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