Re: POC, WIP: OR-clause support for indexes

Andrei Lepikhov <lepihov@gmail.com>

From: Andrei Lepikhov <lepihov@gmail.com>
To: Alexander Korotkov <aekorotkov@gmail.com>
Cc: Alena Rybakina <a.rybakina@postgrespro.ru>, Nikolay Shaplov <dhyan@nataraj.su>, pgsql-hackers@lists.postgresql.org, jian he <jian.universality@gmail.com>, Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com>, pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org, Peter Geoghegan <pg@bowt.ie>, Marcos Pegoraro <marcos@f10.com.br>, teodor@sigaev.ru, Peter Eisentraut <peter@eisentraut.org>, Ranier Vilela <ranier.vf@gmail.com>
Date: 2024-08-25T14:16:07Z
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. Make group_similar_or_args() reorder clause list as little as possible

  2. Allow usage of match_orclause_to_indexcol() for joins

  3. Skip not SOAP-supported indexes while transforming an OR clause into SAOP

  4. Remove the wrong assertion from match_orclause_to_indexcol()

  5. Teach bitmap path generation about transforming OR-clauses to SAOP's

  6. Transform OR-clauses to SAOP's during index matching

  7. Fix the value of or_to_any_transform_limit in postgresql.conf.sample

  8. Transform OR clauses to ANY expression

  9. MergeAttributes code deduplication

  10. SEARCH and CYCLE clauses

  11. Improve estimation of OR clauses using extended statistics.

  12. Teach btree to handle ScalarArrayOpExpr quals natively.

  13. Revise collation derivation method and expression-tree representation.

  14. Instead of trying to force WHERE clauses into CNF or DNF normal form,

On 23/8/2024 14:58, Alexander Korotkov wrote:
> On Fri, Aug 23, 2024 at 1:23 PM Andrei Lepikhov <lepihov@gmail.com> wrote:
>> The last query doesn't group clauses into two indexes. The reason is in
>> match_index_to_operand which classifies all 'x=' to one class. I'm not
>> sure because of overhead, but it may be resolved by using
>> predicate_implied_by to partial indexes.
> 
> Yes, this is the conscious limitation of my patch: to consider similar
> OR arguments altogether and one-by-one, not in arbitrary groups.  The
> important thing here is that we still generating BitmapOR patch as we
> do without the patch.  So, there is no regression.  I would leave this
> as is to not make this feature too complicated. This could be improved
> in future though.
It looks reasonable for me, thanks for the explanation.

What's more, I suspicious about the line:
*subrinfo = *rinfo;

Here, you copy everything, including cached estimations like norm_selec 
or eval_cost. I see that the match_orclause_to_indexcol creates a new 
SAOP where all caches will be cleaned, but just to be sure, maybe we 
should reset any cached estimations to default values — in that case, 
anyone who tries to build a new path based on these grouped OR clauses 
will recalculate that data.
At least, incorrect eval_cost of iclause->rinfo can slightly change the 
cost of rechecking operation, can't it?

-- 
regards, Andrei Lepikhov