Re: Reduce planning time for large NOT IN lists containing NULL

Hi David,

Thanks for review

On 2/19/26 18:38, David Geier wrote:
> +1 on the general idea.
>
>> For constant arrays I propose adding a simple pre-check before entering
>> the per-element loop: detect whether the array contains at least one
>> NULL element (e.g., via memchr() for the deconstructed array case). If
>> so, and we are in the ALL / NOT IN case, we can immediately return
>> selectivity = 0.0 and skip all further computation. This would avoid
>> extra per-element estimation work while preserving semantics.
> How much overhead does the memchr() call add? It seems like this
> approach optimizes the edge case at the expense of the common case,
> which doesn't seem like a good trade-off.
>
> How about instead adding a flag to ArrayType which indicates if the
> array contains NULL or not. This flag could be set in
> construct_md_array() which already iterates over all elements. The flag
> would need to be kept up-to-date, e.g. in array_set_element() and
> possibly other functions modifying the array.

It seems we might reinventing the wheel.

There is already ARR_HASNULL() which allows us to detect the presence of 
NULL in ArrayType.

>> In cases where array elements are not known to be constants in advance,
>> such a pre-check is less straightforward, because each element must
>> first be inspected to determine whether it is a Const and whether it is
>> NULL. That already requires iterating through the list, so introducing a
>> separate early pass would not actually reduce the amount of work.
>> Therefore, it like makes sense to keep the current behavior in that
>> situation.
> Agreed.

After thinking about this more, is seems reasonable to short-circuit еру 
loop when we detect a NULL element by checking whether the element is a 
Const and NULL.


I've attached v2 patch.

-- 
Best regards.
Ilia Evdokimov,
Tantor Labs LLC,
https://tantorlabs.com/