Commit 7d8ac9814b adjusted these
tests in the hope of preserving the plan shape, but I failed to
notice that the three partitions were, on my local machine, choosing
two different plan shapes. This is probably related to the fact
that all three tables have exactly the same row count. Try to
improve the situation by making pht1_e about half as large as
the other two.
Per Tom Lane and the buildfarm.
Discussion: http://postgr.es/m/25380.1519277713@sss.pgh.pa.us
Previously, Append didn't charge anything at all, and MergeAppend
charged only cpu_operator_cost, about half the value used here. This
change might make MergeAppend plans slightly more likely to be chosen
than before, since this commit increases the assumed cost for Append
-- with default values -- by 0.005 per tuple but MergeAppend by only
0.0025 per tuple. Since the comparisons required by MergeAppend are
costed separately, it's not clear why MergeAppend needs to be
otherwise more expensive than Append, so hopefully this is OK.
Prior to partition-wise join, it didn't really matter whether or not
an Append node had any cost of its own, because every plan had to use
the same number of Append or MergeAppend nodes and in the same places.
Only the relative cost of Append vs. MergeAppend made a difference.
Now, however, it is possible to avoid some of the Append nodes using a
partition-wise join, so it's worth making an effort. Pending patches
for partition-wise aggregate care too, because an Append of Aggregate
nodes will incur the Append overhead fewer times than an Aggregate
over an Append. Although in most cases this change will favor the use
of partition-wise techniques, it does the opposite when the join
cardinality is greater than the sum of the input cardinalities. Since
this situation arises in an existing regression test, I [rhaas]
adjusted it to keep the overall plan shape approximately the same.
Jeevan Chalke, per a suggestion from David Rowley. Reviewed by
Ashutosh Bapat. Some changes by me. The larger patch series of which
this patch is a part was also reviewed and tested by Antonin Houska,
Rajkumar Raghuwanshi, David Rowley, Dilip Kumar, Konstantin Knizhnik,
Pascal Legrand, Rafia Sabih, and me.
Discussion: http://postgr.es/m/CAKJS1f9UXdk6ZYyqbJnjFO9a9hyHKGW7B=ZRh-rxy9qxfPA5Gw@mail.gmail.com
The previous code assumed that we'd always succeed in creating
child-joins for a joinrel for which partition-wise join was considered,
but that's not guaranteed, at least in the case where dummy rels
are involved.
Ashutosh Bapat, with some wordsmithing by me.
Discussion: http://postgr.es/m/CAFjFpRf8=uyMYYfeTBjWDMs1tR5t--FgOe2vKZPULxxdYQ4RNw@mail.gmail.com
Hash partitioning is useful when you want to partition a growing data
set evenly. This can be useful to keep table sizes reasonable, which
makes maintenance operations such as VACUUM faster, or to enable
partition-wise join.
At present, we still depend on constraint exclusion for partitioning
pruning, and the shape of the partition constraints for hash
partitioning is such that that doesn't work. Work is underway to fix
that, which should both improve performance and make partitioning
pruning work with hash partitioning.
Amul Sul, reviewed and tested by Dilip Kumar, Ashutosh Bapat, Yugo
Nagata, Rajkumar Raghuwanshi, Jesper Pedersen, and by me. A few
final tweaks also by me.
Discussion: http://postgr.es/m/CAAJ_b96fhpJAP=ALbETmeLk1Uni_GFZD938zgenhF49qgDTjaQ@mail.gmail.com
Instead of joining two partitioned tables in their entirety we can, if
it is an equi-join on the partition keys, join the matching partitions
individually. This involves teaching the planner about "other join"
rels, which are related to regular join rels in the same way that
other member rels are related to baserels. This can use significantly
more CPU time and memory than regular join planning, because there may
now be a set of "other" rels not only for every base relation but also
for every join relation. In most practical cases, this probably
shouldn't be a problem, because (1) it's probably unusual to join many
tables each with many partitions using the partition keys for all
joins and (2) if you do that scenario then you probably have a big
enough machine to handle the increased memory cost of planning and (3)
the resulting plan is highly likely to be better, so what you spend in
planning you'll make up on the execution side. All the same, for now,
turn this feature off by default.
Currently, we can only perform joins between two tables whose
partitioning schemes are absolutely identical. It would be nice to
cope with other scenarios, such as extra partitions on one side or the
other with no match on the other side, but that will have to wait for
a future patch.
Ashutosh Bapat, reviewed and tested by Rajkumar Raghuwanshi, Amit
Langote, Rafia Sabih, Thomas Munro, Dilip Kumar, Antonin Houska, Amit
Khandekar, and by me. A few final adjustments by me.
Discussion: http://postgr.es/m/CAFjFpRfQ8GrQvzp3jA2wnLqrHmaXna-urjm_UY9BqXj=EaDTSA@mail.gmail.com
Discussion: http://postgr.es/m/CAFjFpRcitjfrULr5jfuKWRPsGUX0LQ0k8-yG0Qw2+1LBGNpMdw@mail.gmail.com
