Antonin Houska <[email protected]> wrote: > > Jeevan Chalke <[email protected]> wrote: > > > Our work will overlap when we are pushing down the aggregate on partitioned > > base relation to its children/partitions. > > > > I think you should continue working on pushing down aggregate onto the > > joins/scans where as I will continue my work on pushing down aggregates to > > partitions (joins as well as single table). Once we are done with these task, > > then we may need to find a way to integrate them. > > > > [1] https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/flat/CAFjFpRfQ8GrQvzp3jA2wnLqrHmaXna-urjm_UY9BqXj=EaDTSA@mail.gmail.com#CAFjFpRfQ8GrQvzp3jA2wnLqrHmaXna-urjm_UY9BqXj=EaDTSA@mail.gmail.com > > My patch does also create (partial) aggregation paths below the Append node, > but only expects SeqScan as input. Please check if you patch can be based on > this or if there's any conflict. Well, I haven't imposed any explicit restriction on the kind of path to be aggregated below the Append path. Maybe the only thing to do is to merge my patch with the "partition-wise join" patch (which I haven't checked yet). -- Antonin Houska Cybertec Schönig & Schönig GmbH Gröhrmühlgasse 26 A-2700 Wiener Neustadt Web: http://www.postgresql-support.de, http://www.cybertec.at
pgsql-hackers by date:
Соглашаюсь с условиями обработки персональных данных
