Re: POC, WIP: OR-clause support for indexes
Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com>
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 Fri, Oct 4, 2024 at 2:20 PM Peter Geoghegan <pg@bowt.ie> wrote: > On Fri, Oct 4, 2024 at 2:00 PM Alexander Korotkov <aekorotkov@gmail.com> wrote: > > Yes, transformAExprIn() does the work to coerce all the expressions in > > the right part to the same type. Similar logic could be implemented > > in match_orclause_to_indexcol(). What worries me is whether it's > > quite late stage for this kind of work. transformAExprIn() works > > during parse stage, when we need to to resolve types, operators etc. > > And we do that once. > > I agree that it would be a bit awkward. Especially having spent so > much time talking about doing this later on, not during parsing. That > doesn't mean that it's necessarily the wrong thing to do, though. True, but we also can't realistically use select_common_type() here. I mean, it thinks that we have a ParseState and that there might be values with type UNKNOWNOID floating around. By the time we reach the planner, neither thing is true. And honestly, it looks to me like that's pointing to a deeper problem with your idea. When someone writes foo IN (1, 2222222222222222222222222), we have to make up our mind what type of literal each of those is. select_common_type() allows us to decide that since the second value is big, we're going to consider both to be literals of type int8. But that is completely different than the situation this patch faces. We're now much further down the road; we have already decided that, say, 1, is and int4 and 2222222222222222222222222 is an int8. It's possible to cast a value to a different type if we don't mind failing or have some principled way to avoid doing so, but it's way too late to reverse our previous decision about how to parse the characters the user entered. The original "char *" value is lost to us and the type OID we picked may already be stored in the catalogs or something. -- Robert Haas EDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com