Re: POC, WIP: OR-clause support for indexes
Andrei Lepikhov <lepihov@gmail.com>
Commits
GET /api/v1/messages/:b64id/commits
the thread's linked commits as JSON, with link sources.
API reference →
-
Make group_similar_or_args() reorder clause list as little as possible
- 775a06d44c04 18.0 landed
-
Allow usage of match_orclause_to_indexcol() for joins
- 627d63419e22 18.0 landed
-
Skip not SOAP-supported indexes while transforming an OR clause into SAOP
- 5bba0546eecb 18.0 landed
-
Remove the wrong assertion from match_orclause_to_indexcol()
- d4d11940df94 18.0 landed
-
Teach bitmap path generation about transforming OR-clauses to SAOP's
- ae4569161a27 18.0 landed
-
Transform OR-clauses to SAOP's during index matching
- d4378c0005e6 18.0 landed
-
Fix the value of or_to_any_transform_limit in postgresql.conf.sample
- 2af75e117478 17.0 landed
-
Transform OR clauses to ANY expression
- 72bd38cc99a1 17.0 landed
-
MergeAttributes code deduplication
- 64444ce071f6 17.0 cited
-
SEARCH and CYCLE clauses
- 3696a600e229 14.0 cited
-
Improve estimation of OR clauses using extended statistics.
- 25a9e54d2db3 14.0 cited
-
Teach btree to handle ScalarArrayOpExpr quals natively.
- 9e8da0f75731 9.2.0 cited
-
Revise collation derivation method and expression-tree representation.
- b310b6e31ce5 9.1.0 cited
-
Instead of trying to force WHERE clauses into CNF or DNF normal form,
- 9888192fb773 8.0.0 cited
On 10/4/24 03:15, Peter Geoghegan wrote: > On Tue, Oct 1, 2024 at 6:25 AM Alexander Korotkov <aekorotkov@gmail.com> wrote: >> I think this patchset got much better, and it could possible be >> committed after another round of cleanup and comment/docs improvement. >> It would be very kind if you share your view on the decisions made in >> this patchset. Let me provide a standpoint to help Alexander. The origin reason was - to avoid multiple BitmapOr, which has some effects at the planning stage (memory consumption, planning time) and execution (execution time growth). IndexScan also works better with a single array (especially a hashed one) than with a long list of clauses. Another reason is that by spending some time identifying common operator family and variable-side clause equality, we open a way for future cheap improvements like removing duplicated constants. Who knows, maybe we will be capable of using this code to improve cardinality estimations. According to your proposal, we have had such casting to the common type in previous versions. Here, we avoid it intentionally: the general idea is about long lists of constants, and such casting causes questions about performance. Do I want it in the core? Yes, I do! But may we implement it a bit later to have time to probe the general method and see how it flies? -- regards, Andrei Lepikhov