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
Attachments
- minor-fix.txt (text/plain)
On 10/12/24 21:25, Alexander Korotkov wrote: > I forgot to specify (COSTS OFF) for EXPLAINs in regression tests. Fixed in v42. I've passed through the patch set. Let me put aside the v42-0003 patch—it looks debatable, and I need time to analyse the change in regression tests caused by this patch. Comments look much better according to my current language level. Ideas with fast exits also look profitable and are worth an additional 'matched' variable. So, in general, it is ok. I think only one place with inner_other_clauses can be improved. Maybe it will be enough to create this list only once, outside 'foreach(j, groupedArgs)' cycle? Also, the comment on the necessity of this operation was unclear to me. See the attachment for my modest attempt at improving it. -- regards, Andrei Lepikhov