Do you have any code pointer for achieving that, Jacques? My main concern is how to estimate the new cost. Do you leverage the estimation of predicate selectivity over the partitioning expression maybe?
Il Dom 12 Dic 2021, 05:48 Jacques Nadeau <jacq...@apache.org> ha scritto: > What we have done in the past is push filters into a scan and alter the > costing (and estimated row count). In cases where the filter or portions of > the filter can be applied against partitioning columns, you prune > partitions and use a new row count estimate/cost estimate based on the > reduced partition set. > > > On Fri, Dec 10, 2021 at 10:25 AM Maxim Gramin <mgra...@querifylabs.com> > wrote: > > > I assume that some of the filter conditions (which are involved in the > > choice of partitions ) may by pushdown'ed to TableScan > > > > On Fri, Dec 10, 2021 at 7:29 PM Константин Новиков > > <kona_n...@mail.ru.invalid> wrote: > > > > > > > > Hi, > > > > > > Given some partitioned storage, we can omit the scan of some partitions > > > when a filter is present. How can the lower cost of the scan be > > > represented? As far as I can tell the current approach only allows > > > providing a single cost for the TableScan and Filter can only add to > > > that. Should my implementation provide a rule that combines > > > Filter+TableScan? > > > > > >
