[question] multil-column range partition prune

Поиск
Список
Период
Сортировка
От tender wang
Тема [question] multil-column range partition prune
Дата
Msg-id CAHewXNkpULo0ipTJCydNE0-oT2Xnh+BSMzBy+rgthNegSdKY8w@mail.gmail.com
обсуждение исходный текст
Ответы Re: [question] multil-column range partition prune  (Matthias van de Meent <boekewurm+postgres@gmail.com>)
Re: [question] multil-column range partition prune  (Christoph Moench-Tegeder <cmt@burggraben.net>)
Список pgsql-hackers
I have an range partition and query below:
create table p_range(a int, b int) partition by range (a,b); create table p_range1 partition of p_range for values from (1,1) to (3,3); create table p_range2 partition of p_range for values from (4,4) to (6,6); explain select * from p_range where b =2;
                                QUERY PLAN
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
 Append  (cost=0.00..76.61 rows=22 width=8)
   ->  Seq Scan on p_range1 p_range_1  (cost=0.00..38.25 rows=11 width=8)
         Filter: (b = 2)
   ->  Seq Scan on p_range2 p_range_2  (cost=0.00..38.25 rows=11 width=8)
         Filter: (b = 2)
(5 rows)

The result of EXPLAIN shows that no partition prune happened.
And gen_prune_steps_from_opexps() has comments that can answer the result.
/*
* For range partitioning, if we have no clauses for the current key,
* we can't consider any later keys either, so we can stop here.
*/
if (part_scheme->strategy == PARTITION_STRATEGY_RANGE &&
clauselist == NIL)
break;

But I want to know why we don't prune when just have latter partition key in whereClause.
Thanks.

В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления:

Предыдущее
От: Alvaro Herrera
Дата:
Сообщение: Re: pgsql: Ignore BRIN indexes when checking for HOT udpates
Следующее
От: Amit Kapila
Дата:
Сообщение: Re: [PATCH] Add loongarch native checksum implementation.