Kato-san, On Wed, Jul 8, 2020 at 10:32 AM kato-...@fujitsu.com <kato-...@fujitsu.com> wrote: > On Tuesday, July 7, 2020 6:31 PM Etsuro Fujita <etsuro.fuj...@gmail.com> > wrote: > > Just to be clear, the condition (c1, c2) < (99, 99) is not equivalent to the > > condition c1 < 99 and c2 < 99 (see the documentation note in [1]). > > Thanks for sharing this document. I have understood. > > > but I don't think the main reason for that is that it takes time to parse > > expressions.
I think the only reason that this is not supported is that I hadn't tested such a query when developing partition pruning, nor did anyone else suggest doing so. :) > > Yeah, I think it's great to support row-wise comparison not only with the > > small > > number of args but with the large number of them. +1 > These comments are very helpful. > Ok, I try to make POC that allows row-wise comparison with partition-pruning. That would be great, thank you. -- Amit Langote EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
