Re: Record a Bitmapset of non-pruned partitions

On Fri, 30 Jul 2021 at 19:10, Amit Langote <amitlangote09@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> 0001 looks mostly fine, except I thought the following could be worded
> to say that the bitmap members are offsets into the part_rels array.
> To avoid someone confusing them with RT indexes, for example.
>
> +   Bitmapset  *live_parts;     /* Bitmap with members to indicate which
> +                                * partitions survived partition pruning. */

Yeah, agreed. I've adjusted that.

> On 0002:
>
> interleaved_parts idea looks clever.  I wonder if you decided that
> it's maybe not worth setting that field in the joinrel's
> PartitionBoundInfos?  For example, adding the code that you added in
> create_list_bounds() also in merge_list_bounds().

Currently generate_orderedappend_paths() only checks
partitions_are_ordered() for base and other member rels, so setting
the field for join rels would be a waste of effort given that it's not
used for anything.

I've not really looked into the possibility of enabling this
optimization for partition-wise joined rels. I know that there's a bit
more complexity now due to c8434d64c. I'm not really all that clear on
which cases could be allowed here and which couldn't. It would require
more analysis and I'd say that's a different patch.

> ...  The definition of interleaved
> + * is any partition that can contain multiple different values where exists at
> + * least one other partition which could contain a value which is between the
> + * multiple possible values in the other partition.
>
> The sentence sounds a bit off starting at "...where exists".  How about:

I must have spent too long writing SQL queries.

> "A partition is considered interleaved if it contains multiple values
> such that there exists at least one other partition containing a value
> that lies between those values [ in terms of partitioning-defined
> ordering ]."

That looks better. I took that with some small adjustments.

> Looks fine otherwise.

Thanks for the review.

I had another self review of these and I'm pretty happy with them. I'm
quite glad to see the performance of querying a single partition of a
table with large numbers of partitions no longer tails off as much as
it used to.

David