Re: Removing unneeded self joins
Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com>
Commits
GET /api/v1/messages/:b64id/commits
the thread's linked commits as JSON, with link sources.
API reference →
-
Remove GUC_NOT_IN_SAMPLE from enable_self_join_elimination
- 717d0e8dd945 18.0 landed
-
Put enable_self_join_elimination into postgresql.conf.sample
- c2d329260cd8 18.0 landed
-
Get rid of ojrelid local variable in remove_rel_from_query()
- e167191dc146 18.0 landed
-
Implement Self-Join Elimination
- fc069a3a6319 18.0 cited
-
Revert: Remove useless self-joins
- d1d286d83c0e 17.0 landed
-
Replace lateral references to removed rels in subqueries
- 466979ef031a 17.0 landed
-
Replace relids in lateral subquery parse tree during SJE
- 489072ab7a9e 17.0 landed
-
Forbid SJE with result relation
- 8c441c082797 17.0 landed
-
Fix misuse of RelOptInfo.unique_for_rels cache by SJE
- 30b4955a4668 17.0 landed
-
Replace the relid in some missing fields during SJE
- a7928a57b9f0 17.0 landed
-
Revert 56-bit relfilenode change and follow-up commits.
- a448e49bcbe4 16.0 cited
-
Stabilize timetz test across DST transitions.
- 4a071afbd056 14.0 cited
-
Speed up finding EquivalenceClasses for a given set of rels
- 3373c7155350 13.0 cited
-
Fix mark-and-restore-skipping test case to not be a self-join.
- 24d08f3c0a1f 12.0 landed
On Mon, May 6, 2024 at 12:01 PM Andrei Lepikhov <a.lepikhov@postgrespro.ru> wrote: > Right now, it evolves extensively - new structures, variables, > alternative copies of the same node trees with slightly changed > properties ... This way allows us to quickly introduce some planning > features (a lot of changes in planner logic since PG16 is evidence of > that) and with still growing computing resources it allows postgres to > fit RAM and proper planning time. But maybe we want to be more modest? > The Ashutosh's work he has been doing this year shows how sometimes > expensive the planner is. Perhaps we want machinery that will check the > integrity of planning data except the setrefs, which fail to detect that > occasionally? > If an extensive approach is the only viable option, then it's clear that > this and many other features are simply not suitable for Postgres > Planner. It's disheartening that this patch didn't elicit such > high-level feedback. Well, as I said before, I think self-join elimination is a good feature, and I believe that it belongs in PostgreSQL. However, I don't believe that this implementation was done as well as it needed to be done. A great deal of the work involved in a feature like this lies in figuring out at what stage of processing certain kinds of transformations ought to be done, and what cleanup is needed afterward. It is difficult for anyone to get that completely right the first time around; left join elimination also provoked a series of after-the-fact bug fixes. However, I think those were fewer in number and spread over a longer period of time. Now that being said, I do also agree that the planner code is quite hard to understand, for various reasons. I don't think the structure of that code and the assumptions underlying it are as well-documented as they could be, and neither do I think that all of them are optimal. It has taken me a long time to learn as much as I know, and there is still quite a lot that I don't know. And I also agree that the planner does an unfortunate amount of in-place modification of existing structures without a lot of clarity about how it all works, and an unfortunate amount of data copying in some places, and even that the partition-wise join code isn't all that it could be. But I do not think that adds up to a conclusion that we should just be less ambitious with planner changes. Indeed, I would like to see us do more. There is certainly a lot of useful work that could be done. The trick is figuring out how to do it without breaking too many things, and that is not easy. -- Robert Haas EDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com