On Fri, 21 Dec 2018 at 06:26, Tom Lane wrote:
> Pushed with some fiddling with the comment.
Great. Thanks!
> I wasn't excited about the test case you offered --- on HEAD, it pretty
> much all devolves to file access operations (probably, checking the
> current length of all the child relations).
David Rowley writes:
> On Thu, 20 Dec 2018 at 17:50, Tom Lane wrote:
>> Hm, are you thinking of making BITS_PER_BITMAPWORD match sizeof(Pointer)
>> or something like that? That seems like a good compromise from here.
> Yeah, something along those lines. I've implemented that in the attached.
On Thu, 20 Dec 2018 at 17:50, Tom Lane wrote:
> David Rowley writes:
> > However, I doubt it would take much more effort to maintain
> > using 32-bit sets on 32-bit machines. If someone feels strongly about
> > that then I can adjust the patch to allow that.
>
> Hm, are you thinking of making BI
David Rowley writes:
> I've attached the trivial patch which implements 64-bit Bitmapsets.
> One caveat about this may be that it will likely slow performance for
> 32-bit machines. My current thinking about that is that such a
> platform is likely not that common a target for the latest version
As many of you will know, part of my planned work for PG12 is to
further improve the performance of querying partitioned tables. Amit
Langote is doing quite a bit of work on the planner side of things to
remove the per-partition overhead to reduce that to just for
partitions that survive partition
