Horton

Re: generic plans and "initial" pruning

Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>

View thread View on postgr.es
From: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
To: Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com>
Cc: Amit Langote <amitlangote09@gmail.com>, Jacob Champion <jchampion@timescale.com>, Zhihong Yu <zyu@yugabyte.com>, David Rowley <dgrowleyml@gmail.com>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org>
Date: 2022-07-29T15:04:16Z
Lists: pgsql-hackers 
Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com> writes:
> That's not quite my question, though. Why do we ever build a non-flat
> range table in the first place? Like, instead of assigning indexes
> relative to the current subquery level, why not just assign them
> relative to the whole query from the start?

We could probably make that work, but I'm skeptical that it would
really be an improvement overall, for a couple of reasons.

(1) The need for merge-rangetables-and-renumber-Vars logic doesn't
go away.  It just moves from setrefs.c to the rewriter, which would
have to do it when expanding views.  This would be a net loss
performance-wise, I think, because setrefs.c can do it as part of a
parsetree scan that it has to perform anyway for other housekeeping
reasons; but the rewriter would need a brand new pass over the tree.
Admittedly that pass would only happen for view replacement, but
it's still not open-and-shut that there'd be a performance win.

(2) The need for varlevelsup and similar fields doesn't go away,
I think, because we need those for semantic purposes such as
discovering the query level that aggregates are associated with.
That means that subquery flattening still has to make a pass over
the tree to touch every Var's varlevelsup; so not having to adjust
varno at the same time would save little.

I'm not sure whether I think it's a net plus or net minus that
varno would become effectively independent of varlevelsup.
It'd be different from the way we think of them now, for sure,
and I think it'd take awhile to flush out bugs arising from such
a redefinition.

> I don't really expect that we're ever going to change this -- and
> certainly not on this thread. The idea of running around and replacing
> RT indexes all over the tree is deeply embedded in the system. But are
> we really sure we want to add a second kind of index that we have to
> run around and adjust at the same time?

You probably want to avert your eyes from [1], then ;-).  Although
I'm far from convinced that the cross-list index fields currently
proposed there are actually necessary; the cost to adjust them
during rangetable merging could outweigh any benefit.

			regards, tom lane

[1] https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/flat/CA+HiwqGjJDmUhDSfv-U2qhKJjt9ST7Xh9JXC_irsAQ1TAUsJYg@mail.gmail.com

Commits

  1. Stamp 19beta1.

  2. Revert "Don't lock partitions pruned by initial pruning"

  3. Ensure first ModifyTable rel initialized if all are pruned

  4. Fix bug in cbc127917 to handle nested Append correctly

  5. Remove unstable test suite added by 525392d57

  6. Don't lock partitions pruned by initial pruning

  7. Fix an oversight in cbc127917 to handle MERGE correctly

  8. Track unpruned relids to avoid processing pruned relations

  9. Perform runtime initial pruning outside ExecInitNode()

  10. Move PartitionPruneInfo out of plan nodes into PlannedStmt

  11. Fix setrefs.c's failure to do expression processing on prune steps.

  12. Remove obsolete executor cleanup code

  13. Revert "Move PartitionPruneInfo out of plan nodes into PlannedStmt"

  14. Move PartitioPruneInfo out of plan nodes into PlannedStmt

  15. Refactor and cleanup runtime partition prune code a little

  16. Remove some unnecessary fields from Plan trees.

  17. Remove more redundant relation locking during executor startup.

  18. Shut down Gather's children before shutting down Gather itself.