On Thu, Oct 12, 2017 at 10:49 PM, Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Wed, Oct 11, 2017 at 10:43 PM, Ashutosh Bapat
> <ashutosh.bapat@enterprisedb.com> wrote:
>> You are suggesting that a dummy partitioned table be treated as an
>> un-partitioned table and apply above suggested optimization. A join
>> between a partitioned and unpartitioned table is partitioned by the
>> keys of only partitioned table. An unpartitioned table doesn't have
>> any keys, so this is fine. But a dummy partitioned table does have
>> keys. Recording them as keys of the join relation helps when it joins
>> to other relations. Furthermore a join between partitioned and
>> unpartitioned table doesn't require any equi-join condition on
>> partition keys of partitioned table but a join between partitioned
>> tables is considered to be partitioned by keys on both sides only when
>> there is an equi-join. So, when implementing a partitioned join
>> between a partitioned and an unpartitioned table, we will have to make
>> a special case to record partition keys when the unpartitioned side is
>> actually a dummy partitioned table. That might be awkward.
>
> It seems to me that what we really need here is to move all of this
> stuff into a separate struct:
>
> /* used for partitioned relations */
> PartitionScheme part_scheme; /* Partitioning scheme. */
> int nparts; /* number of
> partitions */
> struct PartitionBoundInfoData *boundinfo; /* Partition bounds */
> struct RelOptInfo **part_rels; /* Array of RelOptInfos of partitions,
>
> * stored in the same order of bounds */
> List **partexprs; /* Non-nullable partition key
> expressions. */
> List **nullable_partexprs; /* Nullable partition key
> expressions. */
>
In a very early patch I had PartitionOptInfo to hold all of this.
RelOptInfo then had a pointer of PartitionOptInfo, if it was
partitioned. When a relation can be partitioned in multiple ways like
what you describe or because join by re-partitioning is efficient,
RelOptInfo would have a list of those. But the representation needs to
be thought through. I am wondering whether this should be modelled
like IndexOptInfo. I am not sure. This is a topic of much larger
discussion.
I think we are digressing. We were discussing my patch to handle dummy
partitioned relation, whose children are not marked dummy and do not
have pathlists set. Do you still think that we should leave that
aside?
--
Best Wishes,
Ashutosh Bapat
EnterpriseDB Corporation
The Postgres Database Company
--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers