Re: Replace IN VALUES with ANY in WHERE clauses during optimization

Alena Rybakina <a.rybakina@postgrespro.ru>

From: Alena Rybakina <a.rybakina@postgrespro.ru>
To: Alexander Korotkov <aekorotkov@gmail.com>
Cc: Andrei Lepikhov <lepihov@gmail.com>, Ivan Kush <ivan.kush@tantorlabs.com>, pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org>, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>, Laurenz Albe <laurenz.albe@cybertec.at>
Date: 2025-03-12T18:11:24Z
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Commits

Same data as JSON: GET /api/v1/messages/:b64id/commits the thread's linked commits as JSON, with link sources. API reference →
  1. Stabilize regression test from c0962a113.

  2. Convert 'x IN (VALUES ...)' to 'x = ANY ...' then appropriate

  3. Extract make_SAOP_expr() function from match_orclause_to_indexcol()

Hi, Alexander!

On 06.03.2025 11:23, Alexander Korotkov wrote:
> Hi, Alena!
>
> On Sat, Mar 1, 2025 at 1:39 PM Alena Rybakina<a.rybakina@postgrespro.ru>  wrote:
>> On 09.02.2025 18:38, Alexander Korotkov wrote:
>>> Also, aren't we too restrictive while requiring is_simple_values_sequence()?
>>> For instance, I believe cases like this (containing Var) could be transformed too.
>>>
>>> select * from t t1, lateral (select * from t t2 where t2.i in (values (t1.i), (1)));
>> I added it and attached a patch with diff file. To be honest, I didn't find queries except for var with volatile functions where the transform can't be applied.
>>
>> I removed the function volatility check that I added in the previous version, since we already check it in is_simple_values_sequence.
>>
>> I'm not sure about only cases where var can refer to something outside available_rels list but I couldn't come up with an example where that's possible, what do you think?
>>
>> Considering it again, I think we can't face problems like that because we don't work with join.
>>
>> I attached a diff file as a difference with the 3rd version of the patch, when we did not consider the values with var for transformation.
> I take detailed look at makeSAOPArrayExpr() function, which is much
> more complex than corresponding fragment from
> match_orclause_to_indexcol().  And I found it to be mostly wrong.  We
> are working in post parse-analyze stage.  That means it's too late to
> do type coercion or lookup operator by name.  We have already all the
> catalog objects nailed down.  In connection with that, second argument
> of OpExpr shouldn't be ignored as it might contain amrelevant type
> cast.  I think I've fixed the most of them problems in the attached
> patchset.
>
>
I agree with your conclusion and changes.

-- 
Regards,
Alena Rybakina
Postgres Professional