Re: path toward faster partition pruning

Hi Amit,

On 09/15/2017 04:50 AM, Amit Langote wrote:
> On 2017/09/15 11:16, Amit Langote wrote:
>> I will post rebased patches later today, although I think the overall
>> design of the patch on the planner side of things is not quite there yet.
>> Of course, your and others' feedback is greatly welcome.
>
> Rebased patches attached. Because Dilip complained earlier today about
> clauses of the form (const op var) not causing partition-pruning, I've
> added code to commute the clause where it is required. Some other
> previously mentioned limitations remain -- no handling of OR clauses, no
> elimination of redundant clauses for given partitioning column, etc.
>
> A note about 0001: this patch overlaps with
> 0003-Canonical-partition-scheme.patch from the partitionwise-join patch
> series that Ashutosh Bapat posted yesterday [1]. Because I implemented
> the planner-portion of this patch based on what 0001 builds, I'm posting
> it here. It might actually turn out that we will review and commit
> 0003-Canonical-partition-scheme.patch on that thread, but meanwhile apply
> 0001 if you want to play with the later patches. I would certainly like
> to review 0003-Canonical-partition-scheme.patch myself, but won't be able
> to immediately (see below).
>

Could you share your thoughts on the usage of PartitionAppendInfo's
min_datum_idx / max_datum_idx ? Especially in relation to hash partitions.

I'm looking at get_partitions_for_keys.

Best regards,
Jesper