Re: [HACKERS] path toward faster partition pruning - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Robert Haas
Subject Re: [HACKERS] path toward faster partition pruning
Date
Msg-id CA+TgmoY3gV7=GQf3EcfYZ_ZMwvmg2ek8s4LiSk8tWc4_6L+2fw@mail.gmail.com
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: [HACKERS] path toward faster partition pruning  (Amit Langote <Langote_Amit_f8@lab.ntt.co.jp>)
List pgsql-hackers
On Sun, Oct 1, 2017 at 9:13 PM, Amit Langote
<Langote_Amit_f8@lab.ntt.co.jp> wrote:
> I agree.  Equality checks are going to be common enough to warrant them to
> be handled specially, instead of implementing equality-pruning on top of
> min/max framework.

What you might do is pass <btree-strategy-number, bounds> and
optionally allow a second <btree-strategy-number, bounds>.  Then for
the common case of equality you can pass BTEqualStrategyNumber and for
a range bounded at both ends you can pass BTGreaterStrategyNumber or
BTGreaterEqualStrategyNumber for one bound and BTLessStrategyNumber or
BTLessEqualStrategyNumber for the other.

Not sure if this is exactly the right idea but it's what pops to mind.

-- 
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company


-- 
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers

pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Daniel Gustafsson
Date:
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] generated columns
Next
From: Robert Haas
Date:
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] [PATCH] Assert that the correct locks are held whencalling PageGetLSN()