Re: Removing unneeded self joins

On 05.04.2025 13:09, Alexander Korotkov wrote:
> On Fri, Apr 4, 2025 at 11:35 AM Andrei Lepikhov<lepihov@gmail.com>  wrote:
>> On 4/4/25 04:53, Richard Guo wrote:
>>> On Fri, Apr 4, 2025 at 1:02 AM Alexander Korotkov<aekorotkov@gmail.com>  wrote:
>>>> I've got an off-list bug report from Alexander Lakhin involving a
>>>> placeholder variable.  Alena and Andrei proposed a fix.  It is fairly
>>>> simple: we just shouldn't remove PHVs during self-join elimination, as
>>>> they might still be referenced from other parts of a query.  The patch
>>>> is attached.  I'm going to fix this if no objections.
>>> Hmm, I'm not sure about the fix.  It seems to me that it simply
>>> prevents removing any PHVs in the self-join removal case.  My concern
>>> is that this might result in PHVs that could actually be removed not
>>> being removed in many cases.
>> Let's play with use cases:
>> If a PHV is needed in the inner or outer only, it means we have a clause
>> in the baserestrictinfo that will be transferred to the keeping
>> relation, and we shouldn't remove the PHV.
>> Another case is when the PHV is needed in a join clause of the
>> self-join. I may imagine such a case:
>>
>> toKeep.x+toRemove.y=PHV
>>
>> This clause will be transformed to "toKeep.x+toKeep.y=PHV", pushed to
>> baserestrictinfo of keeping relation and should be saved.
>> I think it is possible to invent quite a narrow case of clause like the
>> following:
>>
>> PHV_evaluated_at_inner = PHV_evaluated_at_outer
>>
>> It needs to prove reproducibility. But even if it makes sense, it seems
>> to have no danger for further selectivity estimation compared to the
>> source clause and is a too-narrow case, isn't it?
>> In other cases, this PHV is needed something else, and we can't remove it.
I agree with that, and I also believe this case will be quite rare in 
practice.
> Should we add more regression tests covering these cases?
I experimented with some examples like this and noticed that it does 
affect cardinality estimation, though I'm not sure the impact is 
significant.
I used the tables from the regression tests, so if they’re appropriate 
for reproducing this case, it should be straightforward to add them.

EXPLAIN (analyze, VERBOSE)
SELECT 1
FROM tbl_phv t1
LEFT JOIN (
     SELECT 1 AS extra, x, y FROM tbl_phv tl
) t3
JOIN (
     SELECT y, x FROM tbl_phv tr
) t4 ON t4.y = t3.y and (t4.x*0) = (t3.x *0)
ON true
WHERE t3.extra IS NOT NULL
   AND t4.x + t3.y= (t1.x * 0);


The query plan with transformation:
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
  Hash Join  (cost=3.27..7.16 rows=100 width=4) (actual 
time=0.149..0.151 rows=0.00 loops=1)
    Output: 1
    Hash Cond: ((tr.x + tr.y) = (t1.x * 0))
    Buffers: shared hit=2
    ->  Seq Scan on public.tbl_phv tr  (cost=0.00..2.26 rows=100 
width=8) (actual time=0.027..0.047 rows=100.00 loops=1)
          Output: tr.x, tr.y
          Filter: ((1 IS NOT NULL) AND ((tr.x * 0) IS NOT NULL))
          Rows Removed by Filter: 1
          Buffers: shared hit=1
    ->  Hash  (cost=2.01..2.01 rows=101 width=4) (actual 
time=0.078..0.079 rows=100.00 loops=1)
          Output: t1.x
          Buckets: 1024  Batches: 1  Memory Usage: 12kB
          Buffers: shared hit=1
          ->  Seq Scan on public.tbl_phv t1  (cost=0.00..2.01 rows=101 
width=4) (actual time=0.005..0.038 rows=101.00 loops=1)
                Output: t1.x
                Buffers: shared hit=1
  Planning Time: 0.607 ms
  Execution Time: 0.194 ms
(18 rows)

The query plan without transformation:

QUERY PLAN
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Hash Join (cost=6.09..8.74 rows=1 width=4) (actual time=0.248..0.250 
rows=0.00 loops=1)
Output:1
Hash Cond:((t1.x * 0) = (tr.x + tl.y))
Buffers:shared hit=3
-> Seq Scan on public.tbl_phv t1 (cost=0.00..2.01 rows=101 width=4) 
(actual time=0.011..0.021 rows=101.00 loops=1)
Output:t1.x, t1.y
Buffers:shared hit=1
-> Hash (cost=6.08..6.08 rows=1 width=8) (actual time=0.206..0.207 
rows=100.00 loops=1)
Output:tl.y, tr.x
Buckets:1024 Batches:1 Memory Usage:12kB
Buffers:shared hit=2
-> Hash Join (cost=3.51..6.08 rows=1 width=8) (actual time=0.090..0.160 
rows=100.00 loops=1)
Output:tl.y, tr.x
Inner Unique:true
Hash Cond:((tr.y = tl.y) AND ((tr.x * 0) = (tl.x * 0)))
Buffers:shared hit=2
-> Seq Scan on public.tbl_phv tr (cost=0.00..2.01 rows=101 width=8) 
(actual time=0.005..0.016 rows=101.00 loops=1)
Output:tr.x, tr.y
Buffers:shared hit=1
-> Hash (cost=2.01..2.01 rows=100 width=8) (actual time=0.080..0.080 
rows=100.00 loops=1)
Output:tl.y, tl.x
Buckets:1024 Batches:1 Memory Usage:12kB
Buffers:shared hit=1
-> Seq Scan on public.tbl_phv tl (cost=0.00..2.01 rows=100 width=8) 
(actual time=0.008..0.035 rows=101.00 loops=1)
Output:tl.y, tl.x
Filter:(1 IS NOT NULL)
Buffers:shared hit=1
Planning:
Buffers:shared hit=25
Planning Time:0.609 ms
Execution Time:0.319 ms
(31 rows)

EXPLAIN (analyze, VERBOSE)
SELECT 1
FROM tbl_phv t1
LEFT JOIN (
     SELECT 1 AS extra, x, y FROM tbl_phv tl
) t3
JOIN (
     SELECT y, x FROM tbl_phv tr
) t4 ON t4.y = t3.y
ON true
WHERE t3.extra IS NOT NULL
   AND t4.x + t3.y= (t1.x * 0);


The query plan with transformation:
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
  Hash Join  (cost=3.26..6.90 rows=100 width=4) (actual 
time=0.145..0.146 rows=0.00 loops=1)
    Output: 1
    Hash Cond: ((t1.x * 0) = (tr.x + tr.y))
    Buffers: shared hit=2
    ->  Seq Scan on public.tbl_phv t1  (cost=0.00..2.01 rows=101 
width=4) (actual time=0.030..0.040 rows=101.00 loops=1)
          Output: t1.x, t1.y
          Buffers: shared hit=1
    ->  Hash  (cost=2.01..2.01 rows=100 width=8) (actual 
time=0.081..0.081 rows=100.00 loops=1)
          Output: tr.y, tr.x
          Buckets: 1024  Batches: 1  Memory Usage: 12kB
          Buffers: shared hit=1
          ->  Seq Scan on public.tbl_phv tr  (cost=0.00..2.01 rows=100 
width=8) (actual time=0.012..0.040 rows=101.00 loops=1)
                Output: tr.y, tr.x
                Filter: (1 IS NOT NULL)
                Buffers: shared hit=1
  Planning Time: 0.571 ms
  Execution Time: 0.195 ms
(17 rows)

The query plan without transformation:

QUERY PLAN
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Hash Join (cost=6.53..9.94 rows=50 width=4) (actual time=0.236..0.238 
rows=0.00 loops=1)
Output:1
Hash Cond:((tr.x + tl.y) = (t1.x * 0))
Buffers:shared hit=3
-> Hash Join (cost=3.26..5.55 rows=100 width=8) (actual 
time=0.075..0.137 rows=101.00 loops=1)
Output:tl.y, tr.x
Inner Unique:true
Hash Cond:(tr.y = tl.y)
Buffers:shared hit=2
-> Seq Scan on public.tbl_phv tr (cost=0.00..2.01 rows=101 width=8) 
(actual time=0.005..0.017 rows=101.00 loops=1)
Output:tr.x, tr.y
Buffers:shared hit=1
-> Hash (cost=2.01..2.01 rows=100 width=4) (actual time=0.064..0.065 
rows=101.00 loops=1)
Output:tl.y
Buckets:1024 Batches:1 Memory Usage:12kB
Buffers:shared hit=1
-> Seq Scan on public.tbl_phv tl (cost=0.00..2.01 rows=100 width=4) 
(actual time=0.006..0.033 rows=101.00 loops=1)
Output:tl.y
Filter:(1 IS NOT NULL)
Buffers:shared hit=1
-> Hash (cost=2.01..2.01 rows=101 width=4) (actual time=0.078..0.078 
rows=100.00 loops=1)
Output:t1.x
Buckets:1024 Batches:1 Memory Usage:12kB
Buffers:shared hit=1
-> Seq Scan on public.tbl_phv t1 (cost=0.00..2.01 rows=101 width=4) 
(actual time=0.014..0.039 rows=101.00 loops=1)
Output:t1.x
Buffers:shared hit=1
Planning:
Buffers:shared hit=12
Planning Time:0.478 ms
Execution Time:0.293 ms
(31 rows)

-- 
Regards,
Alena Rybakina
Postgres Professional