Re: POC, WIP: OR-clause support for indexes
Alena Rybakina <a.rybakina@postgrespro.ru>
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
On 26.10.2023 22:58, Robert Haas wrote: > On Thu, Oct 26, 2023 at 3:47 PM Alena Rybakina > <a.rybakina@postgrespro.ru> wrote: >> With small amounts of "OR" elements, the cost of orexpr is lower than with "ANY", on the contrary, higher. > Alexander's example seems to show that it's not that simple. If I'm > reading his example correctly, with things like aid = 1, the > transformation usually wins even if the number of things in the OR > expression is large, but with things like aid + 1 * bid = 1, the > transformation seems to lose at least with larger numbers of items. So > it's not JUST the number of OR elements but also what they contain, > unless I'm misunderstanding his point. Yes, I agree, with Alexander's example, this option will not help and here I need to look inside Expr itself. But I noticed that such a complex non-constant expression is always an OpExpr type, otherwise if the non-constant part contains only one variable, then it is a Var type. We can add a constraint that we will transform expressions with the simple variables like x=1 or x=2 or x=3, etc., but expressions like x*1+y=1 or x*2+y=2... we ignore. But then, we do not consider expressions when the nonconstant part is always the same for expressions. For example, we could transform x*1+y=1 or x*1+y=2... to x*1+y = ANY([1,2,...]). But I think it's not so critical, because such cases are rare. > >> Index Scan using pg_class_oid_index on pg_class (cost=0.27..2859.42 rows=414 width=68) (actual time=1.504..34.183 rows=260 loops=1) >> Index Cond: (oid = ANY (ARRAY['1'::oid, '2'::oid, '3'::oid, '4'::oid, '5'::oid, '6'::oid, '7'::oid, >> >> Bitmap Heap Scan on pg_class (cost=43835.00..54202.14 rows=414 width=68) (actual time=39.958..41.293 rows=260 loops=1) >> Recheck Cond: ((oid = '1'::oid) OR (oid = '2'::oid) OR (oid = '3'::oid) OR (oid = '4'::oid) OR (oid = >> >> I think we could see which value is lower, and if lower with expressions converted to ANY, then work with it further, otherwise work with the original "OR" expressions. But we still need to make this conversion to find out its cost. > To me, this sort of output suggests that perhaps the transformation is > being done in the wrong place. I expect that we have to decide whether > to convert from OR to = ANY(...) at a very early stage of the planner, > before we have any idea what the selected path will ultimately be. But > this output suggests that we want the answer to depend on which kind > of path is going to be faster, which would seem to argue for doing > this sort of transformation as part of path generation for only those > paths that will benefit from it, rather than during earlier phases of > expression processing/simplification. > > I'm not sure I have the full picture here, though, so I might have > this all wrong. > This would be the most ideal option, and to be honest, I like the conversion at an early stage also because there are no problems with selectivity or link updates if we changed the structure of RestrictInfo of relation. But in terms of calculating which option is better to use transformed or original, I think this solution might be complicated, since we need not only to highlight the cases in which the transformation wins in principle, but also with which types of data it will work best and there is a risk of missing some cases and we may need the own evaluation model. Now it's hard for me to come up with something simple. The cost option seems simpler and clearer to me, but yes, it is difficult to decide when it is better to do the conversion for the most correct estimate. -- Regards, Alena Rybakina