Dear Andrey and Thom, Thank you for reviewing and testing the patch. I really apologize for my late response.
On Tue, Nov 8, 2022 at 8:31 PM Andrey Lepikhov <a.lepik...@postgrespro.ru> wrote: > Looking into find_em_for_rel() changes I see that you replaced > if (bms_is_subset(em->em_relids, rel->relids) > with assertion statement. > According of get_ecmember_indexes(), the em_relids field of returned > equivalence members can contain relids, not mentioned in the relation. > I don't understand, why it works now? For example, we can sort by t1.x, > but have an expression t1.x=t1.y*t2.z. Or I've missed something? If it > is not a mistake, maybe to add a comment why assertion here isn't failed? As you pointed out, changing the bms_is_subset() condition to an assertion is logically incorrect here. Thank you for telling me about it. I fixed it and attached the modified patch to this email. On Thu, Nov 17, 2022 at 9:05 PM Thom Brown <t...@linux.com> wrote: > No issues with applying. Created 1024 partitions, each of which is > partitioned into 64 partitions. > > I'm getting a generic planning time of 1415ms. Is that considered > reasonable in this situation? Bear in mind that the planning time > prior to this patch was 282311ms, so pretty much a 200x speedup. Thank you for testing the patch with an actual query. This speedup is very impressive. When I used an original query with 1024 partitions, its planning time was about 200ms. Given that each partition is also partitioned in your workload, I think the result of 1415ms is reasonable. -- Best regards, Yuya Watari
v9-0001-Apply-eclass_member_speedup_v3.patch.patch
Description: Binary data
v9-0002-Revert-one-of-the-optimizations.patch
Description: Binary data
v9-0003-Use-conventional-algorithm-for-smaller-size-cases.patch
Description: Binary data
v9-0004-Fix-incorrect-assertion.patch
Description: Binary data
