Re: Discussion on missing optimizations

Petr Jelinek <petr.jelinek@2ndquadrant.com> writes:
> On 07/10/17 04:19, Tom Lane wrote:
>> (edit: a few minutes later, I seem to remember that equivclass.c has
>> to do something special with the X=X case, so maybe it could do
>> something else special instead, with little new overhead.)

> So I wrote prototype of achieving this optimization and it seems to be
> really quite simple code-wise (see attached). I did only a limited
> manual testing of this but I don't see any negative impact on planning time.

No, I'm afraid you didn't read that comment closely enough.  This will
flat out fail for cases like "select ... where x=x order by x", because
there will already be a single-element EC for x and so the clause will
just disappear entirely.  If that doesn't happen, then instead you're
creating an EC with duplicate entries, which is an idea I seriously
dislike; the semantics of that don't seem clear at all to me.

What I was imagining was that having detected X=X, instead of "throwing
back" the clause as-is we could throw back an X IS NOT NULL clause,
along the lines of the attached.

This passes the smell test for me in the sense of not adding any
significant number of planner cycles except when the weird case occurs.
It leaves something on the table in that there are some situations
where X=X could be converted, but we won't do it because we don't see
the clause as being a potential EC (because it's not at top level),
as in the second new regression test case below.  I think that's
probably all right; I don't see any way to be more thorough without
adding a lot of new cycles all the time, and I don't believe this is
worth that.

			regards, tom lane