Kato-san,
On Wed, Jul 8, 2020 at 10:32 AM kato-sho@fujitsu.com
<kato-sho@fujitsu.com> wrote:
> On Tuesday, July 7, 2020 6:31 PM Etsuro Fujita <etsuro.fujita@gmail.com> wrote:
> > Just to be clear, the condition (c1, c2) < (99, 99) is not equivalent to the
> > condition c1 < 99 and c2 < 99 (see the documentation note in [1]).
>
> Thanks for sharing this document. I have understood.
>
> > but I don't think the main reason for that is that it takes time to parse
> > expressions.
I think the only reason that this is not supported is that I hadn't
tested such a query when developing partition pruning, nor did anyone
else suggest doing so. :)
> > Yeah, I think it's great to support row-wise comparison not only with the small
> > number of args but with the large number of them.
+1
> These comments are very helpful.
> Ok, I try to make POC that allows row-wise comparison with partition-pruning.
That would be great, thank you.
--
Amit Langote
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com