Re: avoid bitmapOR-ing indexes with scan condition inconsistent with partition constraint

2021-02-01 Thread Masahiko Sawada
On Mon, Feb 1, 2021 at 12:09 PM Masahiko Sawada wrote: > > Hi, > > On Fri, Nov 13, 2020 at 5:14 AM Tom Lane wrote: > > > > I started looking through this patch. I really quite dislike solving > > this via a kluge in indxpath.c. There are multiple disadvantages > > to that: > > > > * It only hel

Re: avoid bitmapOR-ing indexes with scan condition inconsistent with partition constraint

2021-01-31 Thread Masahiko Sawada
Hi, On Fri, Nov 13, 2020 at 5:14 AM Tom Lane wrote: > > I started looking through this patch. I really quite dislike solving > this via a kluge in indxpath.c. There are multiple disadvantages > to that: > > * It only helps for the very specific problem of redundant bitmap > index scans, whereas

Re: avoid bitmapOR-ing indexes with scan condition inconsistent with partition constraint

2020-11-12 Thread Tom Lane
I started looking through this patch. I really quite dislike solving this via a kluge in indxpath.c. There are multiple disadvantages to that: * It only helps for the very specific problem of redundant bitmap index scans, whereas the problem of applying redundant qual checks in partition scans s

Re: avoid bitmapOR-ing indexes with scan condition inconsistent with partition constraint

2020-11-11 Thread Konstantin Knizhnik
The following review has been posted through the commitfest application: make installcheck-world: tested, passed Implements feature: tested, passed Spec compliant: tested, passed Documentation:not tested I think that work on improving operator_predicate_proof should re

Re: avoid bitmapOR-ing indexes with scan condition inconsistent with partition constraint

2020-10-13 Thread Justin Pryzby
On Wed, Sep 30, 2020 at 04:52:02PM -0700, Soumyadeep Chakraborty wrote: > Hi Justin, > > Attached is a minimal patch that is rebased and removes the > dependency on Konstantin's earlier patch[1], making it enough to remove > the extraneous index scans as Justin brought up. Is this the direction we

Re: avoid bitmapOR-ing indexes with scan condition inconsistent with partition constraint

2020-09-30 Thread Soumyadeep Chakraborty
Hi Justin, Attached is a minimal patch that is rebased and removes the dependency on Konstantin's earlier patch[1], making it enough to remove the extraneous index scans as Justin brought up. Is this the direction we want to head in? Tagging Konstantin in the email to hear his input on his old pa

Re: avoid bitmapOR-ing indexes with scan condition inconsistent with partition constraint

2020-08-03 Thread Justin Pryzby
Rebased and updated for tests added in 13838740f. -- Justin Pryzby System Administrator Telsasoft +1-952-707-8581 >From 9272dda812d2b959d0bd536e0679f8f8527da7b1 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: Konstantin Knizhnik Date: Fri, 12 Oct 2018 15:53:51 +0300 Subject: [PATCH v3 1/2] Secondary index access

Re: avoid bitmapOR-ing indexes with scan condition inconsistent with partition constraint

2020-07-14 Thread Justin Pryzby
Added here: https://commitfest.postgresql.org/29/2644/ And updated tests to pass following: |commit 689696c7110f148ede8004aae50d7543d05b5587 |Author: Tom Lane |Date: Tue Jul 14 18:56:49 2020 -0400 | |Fix bitmap AND/OR scans on the inside of a nestloop partition-wise join. >From 5c323ffaa8c7

avoid bitmapOR-ing indexes with scan condition inconsistent with partition constraint

2020-07-03 Thread Justin Pryzby
(resending to the list) Hi All I started looking into Konstantin's 30 month old thread/patch: |Re: [HACKERS] Secondary index access optimizations https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/27516421-5afa-203c-e22a-8407e9187327%40postgrespro.ru ..to which David directed me 12 months ago: |Subject: Re: