On 11/19/18 04:46, Tom Lane wrote:
In short, proceeding like the above when we can't find another plan
type for a full join seems like it fixes a far wider variety of cases.
The possibility that maybe we could do some of those cases a bit faster
isn't sufficiently attractive to me to justify also
Alexander Kuzmenkov writes:
> [ Inequality-merge-join-v10.patch ]
Just thinking about this patch a bit ... I wonder why you were so quick to
reject the UNION approach at the outset. This patch is pretty messy, and
it complicates a lot of stuff that is quite fundamental to the planner,
and you st
El 18/07/18 a las 16:58, Ashutosh Bapat escribió:
Thanks for the commit messages. I would use word "in-equality" instead
of "comparison" since equality is also a comparison.
Fixed.
Comparing this with the original code, I think, is_mj_equality should be true
if restrictinfo->mergeopfamilies
On Tue, Jul 10, 2018 at 10:06 PM, Alexander Kuzmenkov
wrote:
> I tried to fix the things you mentioned and improve the comments. Among
> other changes, there is now a description of how merge join works with
> inequalities at the top of nodeMergejoin.c. It also explains why we only
> support one i
I tried to fix the things you mentioned and improve the comments. Among
other changes, there is now a description of how merge join works with
inequalities at the top of nodeMergejoin.c. It also explains why we only
support one inequality clause.
Some particular points:
On 07/06/2018 04:01 PM
On Tue, Jul 10, 2018 at 12:05 AM, Alexander Kuzmenkov
wrote:
> On 07/09/2018 04:12 PM, Ashutosh Bapat wrote:
>>
>> On Fri, Jul 6, 2018 at 6:31 PM, Ashutosh Bapat
>> wrote:
>>>
>>> I will continue reviewing the patches.
>>>
>> Here are some more review comments
>
>
>
> Ashutosh,
>
> Many thanks fo
On 07/09/2018 04:12 PM, Ashutosh Bapat wrote:
On Fri, Jul 6, 2018 at 6:31 PM, Ashutosh Bapat
wrote:
I will continue reviewing the patches.
Here are some more review comments
Ashutosh,
Many thanks for the review, I'm glad that we are continuing with this
patch. I'm working on your comment
On Fri, Jul 6, 2018 at 6:31 PM, Ashutosh Bapat
wrote:
>
> I will continue reviewing the patches.
>
Here are some more review comments
- * sort ordering for each merge key. The mergejoinable operator is an
- * equality operator in the opfamily, and the two inputs are guaranteed to be
+ * sort or
Hi,
I have started reviewing these patches. I haven't grasped the design
yet. But here are some comments on the first patch.
-clauses = (MergeJoinClause) palloc0(nClauses *
sizeof(MergeJoinClauseData));
+parent->mj_Clauses = (MergeJoinClause) palloc0(nClauses *
sizeof(MergeJoinClauseData)
On 05.03.2018 08:30, Ashutosh Bapat wrote:
But creating such patches using git format-patch (with -v as some suggest)
really
helps in general.
Thanks for the advice. I heard about this workflow, but never used it
myself. Perhaps it's time to try it.
--
Alexander Kuzmenkov
Postgres Professi
On Fri, Mar 2, 2018 at 8:02 PM, Alexander Kuzmenkov
wrote:
> On 22.02.2018 21:42, Alexander Kuzmenkov wrote:
>>
>>
>> Some basic joins work, but I couldn't properly test all the corner cases
>> with different orderings, because they depend on a bug in vanilla merge
>> joins [1].
>>
>
> The bug was
On 22.02.2018 21:42, Alexander Kuzmenkov wrote:
Some basic joins work, but I couldn't properly test all the corner
cases with different orderings, because they depend on a bug in
vanilla merge joins [1].
The bug was fixed, so here is the rebased patch. The planner part of the
patch is sta
Here are some updates on this patch.
I split it into two parts. The preparatory part contains some mechanical
changes to prepare for the main part. Most importantly, a new field is
added, `RestrictInfo.is_mj_equality`. It is a marker of mergejoinable
equality clauses, and `RestrictInfo.mergeop
On 29.01.2018 08:40, Ashutosh Bapat wrote:
Maybe it's better to separate these two into separate patches so that
it's easy to review patches.
OK, I'll try doing this. For now, moving the patch entry to the next
commitfest.
--
Alexander Kuzmenkov
Postgres Professional: http://www.postgrespro.
On Tue, Jan 23, 2018 at 10:01 PM, Stephen Frost wrote:
> Greetings Alexander,
>
> * Alexander Kuzmenkov (a.kuzmen...@postgrespro.ru) wrote:
>> Here is the patch rebased to a852cfe9.
>
> Thanks for updating it. This would definitely be nice to have.
> Ashutosh, thanks for your previous review, wou
Greetings Alexander,
* Alexander Kuzmenkov (a.kuzmen...@postgrespro.ru) wrote:
> Here is the patch rebased to a852cfe9.
Thanks for updating it. This would definitely be nice to have.
Ashutosh, thanks for your previous review, would you have a chance to
look at it again? Would be great to at lea
Here is the patch rebased to a852cfe9.
--
Alexander Kuzmenkov
Postgres Professional: http://www.postgrespro.com
The Russian Postgres Company
diff --git a/src/backend/executor/nodeMergejoin.c b/src/backend/executor/nodeMergejoin.c
index ef9e1ee471..c842ed2968 100644
--- a/src/backend/executor/nod
On Mon, Oct 30, 2017 at 9:25 PM, Alexander Kuzmenkov
wrote:
> I am attaching the updated patch, rebased to 820c03.
(Please avoid top-posting)
This patch has rotten and conflicts with recent changes in joinrels.c.
This did not get any reviews, so I am moving it to next CF with
"waiting on author"
18 matches
Mail list logo
