On 2016/08/25 1:08, Robert Haas wrote:
On Tue, Aug 23, 2016 at 11:18 PM, Etsuro Fujita
wrote:
OK, I think we should fix the issue that postgres_fdw produces incorrect
aliases for joining relations shown in the Relations line in EXPLAIN for a
join pushdown query like the above) in advance of the
On Tue, Aug 23, 2016 at 11:18 PM, Etsuro Fujita
wrote:
>> Yes, it seems what we are doing now is not consistent with what
>> happens for plain tables; that should probably be fixed.
>
> OK, I think we should fix the issue that postgres_fdw produces incorrect
> aliases for joining relations shown i
On 2016/08/10 5:19, Robert Haas wrote:
On Mon, Aug 8, 2016 at 12:22 AM, Etsuro Fujita
wrote:
One thing we need to do to leave that as is would be to fix a bug that I
pointed out upthred. Let me explain about that again. The EXPLAIN command
selects relation aliases to be used in printing a que
On Mon, Aug 8, 2016 at 12:22 AM, Etsuro Fujita
wrote:
>>> I noticed that currently the core doesn't show any information on the
>>> target
>>> relations involved in a foreign/custom join in EXPLAIN, by itself.
>> I think that's a feature, not a bug.
> I agree with you. I'd leave that for 10.0.
I
On 2016/08/05 21:47, Robert Haas wrote:
On Tue, Jul 26, 2016 at 11:20 PM, Etsuro Fujita
wrote:
I noticed that currently the core doesn't show any information on the target
relations involved in a foreign/custom join in EXPLAIN, by itself.
I think that's a feature, not a bug.
I agree with y
On Tue, Jul 26, 2016 at 11:20 PM, Etsuro Fujita
wrote:
> I noticed that currently the core doesn't show any information on the target
> relations involved in a foreign/custom join in EXPLAIN, by itself.
I think that's a feature, not a bug.
> postgres_fdw shows the target relations in the Relatio
On 2016/08/02 21:35, Etsuro Fujita wrote:
I removed the Relations line. Here is an updated version of the patch.
I revised code and comments a bit. Attached is an updated version of
the patch.
Best regards,
Etsuro Fujita
explain-for-foreign-join-pushdown-v2.patch
Description: binary/oct
On 2016/08/04 18:03, Kouhei Kaigai wrote:
Kaigai-san wrote:
Also, the logic to print "Foreign (Scan|Insert|Update|Delete)" is different
from what I suggested. I'm suggesting to allow extension giving a label
to fill up "Foreign %s" format.
Please explain why your choice is better than my propos
> -Original Message-
> From: Etsuro Fujita [mailto:fujita.ets...@lab.ntt.co.jp]
> Sent: Thursday, August 04, 2016 4:42 PM
> To: Kaigai Kouhei(海外 浩平); pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org
> Subject: Re: [HACKERS] Oddity in EXPLAIN for foreign/custom join pushdown
> plans
>
On 2016/08/02 22:02, Kouhei Kaigai wrote:
I wrote:
I removed the Relations line. Here is an updated version of the patch.
* As I said upthread, I left the upper-relation handling for another
patch. Currently, the patch prints "Foreign Scan" with no relations in
that case.
* I kept custom joi
> -Original Message-
> From: Etsuro Fujita [mailto:fujita.ets...@lab.ntt.co.jp]
> Sent: Tuesday, August 02, 2016 9:36 PM
> To: Kaigai Kouhei(海外 浩平); pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org
> Subject: Re: [HACKERS] Oddity in EXPLAIN for foreign/custom join pushdown
> plans
>
On 2016/08/01 20:15, Etsuro Fujita wrote:
I thought about the Relations line a bit more and noticed that there are
cases where the table reference names for joining relations in the
Relations line are printed incorrectly. Here is an example:
postgres=# explain verbose select * from (select t1.a
> -Original Message-
> From: Etsuro Fujita [mailto:fujita.ets...@lab.ntt.co.jp]
> Sent: Tuesday, August 02, 2016 2:45 PM
> To: Kaigai Kouhei(海外 浩平); Ashutosh Bapat
> Cc: pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org
> Subject: Re: [HACKERS] Oddity in EXPLAIN for foreign/custom join
On 2016/08/02 13:32, Kouhei Kaigai wrote:
I wrote:
My concern here is EXPLAIN for foreign joins. I think it's another
problem how we handle Foreign Scan plan nodes representing
post-scan/join operations in EXPLAIN, so I'd like to leave that for
another patch.
What is the post-scan/join opera
> On 2016/08/01 22:25, Kouhei Kaigai wrote:
>
> I wrote:
> >>> a broader
> >>> word like "Processing" seems to work well because we allow various
> >>> kinds of operations to the remote side, in addition to scans/joins,
> >>> to be performed in that one Foreign Scan node indicated
On 2016/08/01 22:25, Kouhei Kaigai wrote:
I wrote:
a broader
word like "Processing" seems to work well because we allow various
kinds of operations to the remote side, in addition to scans/joins,
to be performed in that one Foreign Scan node indicated by "Foreign
Processing",
> -Original Message-
> From: Etsuro Fujita [mailto:fujita.ets...@lab.ntt.co.jp]
> Sent: Monday, August 01, 2016 8:26 PM
> To: Ashutosh Bapat
> Cc: Kaigai Kouhei(海外 浩平); pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org
> Subject: Re: [HACKERS] Oddity in EXPLAIN for foreign/custom join pushdow
On 2016/08/01 20:31, Ashutosh Bapat wrote:
I thought about the Relations line a bit more and noticed that there
are cases where the table reference names for joining relations in
the Relations line are printed incorrectly. Here is an example:
postgres=# explain verbose select *
> I thought about the Relations line a bit more and noticed that there are
> cases where the table reference names for joining relations in the
> Relations line are printed incorrectly. Here is an example:
>
> postgres=# explain verbose select * from (select t1.a, t2.a from ft1 t1,
> ft2 t2 where
On 2016/07/29 13:28, Ashutosh Bapat wrote:
I wrote:
Probably something like this:
Foreign Processing
Remote Operations: ...
In the Remote Operations line, the FDW/extension could print
any info
about remote operati
On 2016/07/29 13:05, Etsuro Fujita wrote:
In a foreign-join case,
however, we can't see such relations from the EXPLAIN printed *by core*.
postgres_fdw avoids this issue by adding such relations to the EXPLAIN
using ExplainForeignScan as shown in the below example, but since such
relations are e
> I wrote:
> >> That may be so, but my point is that the target relations involved in
> >> the foreign join (ie, ft1 and ft2) should be printed somewhere in the
> >> EXPLAIN output by core, as in EXPLAIN for a simple foreign table scan.
>
> > Why? According to your rule, Hash Join should take "on
I wrote:
>
>> Probably something like this:
>>>
>>>Foreign Processing
>>> Remote Operations: ...
>>>
>>> In the Remote Operations line, the FDW/extension could print any info
>>> about remote operations, eg, "Scan/Join + Aggregate".
>>>
>>
> "Foreign" implies this node is processed by FDW,
On 2016/07/28 22:11, Kouhei Kaigai wrote:
I wrote:
That may be so, but my point is that the target relations involved in
the foreign join (ie, ft1 and ft2) should be printed somewhere in the
EXPLAIN output by core, as in EXPLAIN for a simple foreign table scan.
Why? According to your rule, Ha
> On 2016/07/28 10:01, Kouhei Kaigai wrote:
> > What I'm saying is here:
>
> > EXPLAIN (COSTS false, VERBOSE)
> > SELECT t1.c1, t2.c1 FROM ft1 t1 JOIN ft2 t2 ON (t1.c1 = t2.c1) ORDER BY
> > t1.c3, t1.c1 OFFSET 100 LIMIT 10;
> > QUERY PLAN
> > -
On 2016/07/28 10:01, Kouhei Kaigai wrote:
What I'm saying is here:
EXPLAIN (COSTS false, VERBOSE)
SELECT t1.c1, t2.c1 FROM ft1 t1 JOIN ft2 t2 ON (t1.c1 = t2.c1) ORDER BY
t1.c3, t1.c1 OFFSET 100 LIMIT 10;
QUERY PLAN
---
Limit
> On 2016/07/27 13:51, Kouhei Kaigai wrote:
> > This output is, at least, not incorrect.
> > This ForeignScan actually scan a relation that consists of two joined
> > tables on the remote side. So, not incorrect, but may not convenient for
> > better understanding by users who don't have deep inter
On 2016/07/27 13:51, Kouhei Kaigai wrote:
This output is, at least, not incorrect.
This ForeignScan actually scan a relation that consists of two joined
tables on the remote side. So, not incorrect, but may not convenient for
better understanding by users who don't have deep internal knowledge.
On 2016/07/27 13:09, Ashutosh Bapat wrote:
The patch always prints ForeignJoin when scanrelid <= 0, which would be
odd considering that FDWs can now push down post-join operations. We
need to device a better way to convey post-join operations. May be
something like
Foreign Grouping, aggregation o
> I noticed that currently the core doesn't show any information on the
> target relations involved in a foreign/custom join in EXPLAIN, by
> itself. Here is an example:
>
> -- join two tables
> EXPLAIN (COSTS false, VERBOSE)
> SELECT t1.c1, t2.c1 FROM ft1 t1 JOIN ft2 t2 ON (t1.c1 = t2.c1) ORDER
On Wed, Jul 27, 2016 at 8:50 AM, Etsuro Fujita
wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I noticed that currently the core doesn't show any information on the
> target relations involved in a foreign/custom join in EXPLAIN, by itself.
> Here is an example:
>
> -- join two tables
> EXPLAIN (COSTS false, VERBOSE)
> SELECT
Hi,
I noticed that currently the core doesn't show any information on the
target relations involved in a foreign/custom join in EXPLAIN, by
itself. Here is an example:
-- join two tables
EXPLAIN (COSTS false, VERBOSE)
SELECT t1.c1, t2.c1 FROM ft1 t1 JOIN ft2 t2 ON (t1.c1 = t2.c1) ORDER BY
32 matches
Mail list logo
