Horton

Re: POC, WIP: OR-clause support for indexes

Andrei Lepikhov <lepihov@gmail.com>

View thread
From: Andrei Lepikhov <lepihov@gmail.com>
To: Alexander Korotkov <aekorotkov@gmail.com>, Alena Rybakina <a.rybakina@postgrespro.ru>
Cc: Pavel Borisov <pashkin.elfe@gmail.com>, Alexander Lakhin <exclusion@gmail.com>, pgsql-hackers@lists.postgresql.org
Date: 2025-03-28T11:32:51Z
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Commits

Same data as JSON: GET /api/v1/messages/:b64id/commits the thread's linked commits as JSON, with link sources. API reference →

  1. Make group_similar_or_args() reorder clause list as little as possible

  2. Allow usage of match_orclause_to_indexcol() for joins

  3. Skip not SOAP-supported indexes while transforming an OR clause into SAOP

  4. Remove the wrong assertion from match_orclause_to_indexcol()

  5. Teach bitmap path generation about transforming OR-clauses to SAOP's

  6. Transform OR-clauses to SAOP's during index matching

  7. Fix the value of or_to_any_transform_limit in postgresql.conf.sample

  8. Transform OR clauses to ANY expression

  9. MergeAttributes code deduplication

  10. SEARCH and CYCLE clauses

  11. Improve estimation of OR clauses using extended statistics.

  12. Teach btree to handle ScalarArrayOpExpr quals natively.

  13. Revise collation derivation method and expression-tree representation.

  14. Instead of trying to force WHERE clauses into CNF or DNF normal form,

On 3/28/25 00:18, Alexander Korotkov wrote:
> The attached patch changes the reordering algorithm of
> group_similar_or_args() in the following way.  We reorder each group
> of similar clauses so that the first item of the group stays in place,
> but all the other items are moved after it.  So, if there are no
> similar clauses, the order of clauses stays the same.  When there are
> some groups, only required reordering happens while the rest of the
> clauses remain in their places.
The patch looks good to me from a technical perspective. But it seems 
like an overkill, isn't it?
You introduce additional CPU-consuming operations in the planning OR 
operations.
My point is: 1) as Pavel has mentioned, Postgres doesn't guarantee the 
evaluation/output order of the clauses at all. 2) we need that to keep 
regression tests stable (don't forget extensions' and forks' developers 
too). But it should be done once if we have no fluidity in OR clauses 
order in general.
The trade-off with tricky query writers and regression tests may be 
preserving the order until OR->ANY has happened. If it has happened, 
just ensure the order is determined somehow. Except that, any other 
spending on CPU cycles seems too expensive.

-- 
regards, Andrei Lepikhov