Horton

Re: generic plans and "initial" pruning

Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com>

View thread View on postgr.es
From: Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com>
To: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Cc: Amit Langote <amitlangote09@gmail.com>, Jacob Champion <jchampion@timescale.com>, Zhihong Yu <zyu@yugabyte.com>, David Rowley <dgrowleyml@gmail.com>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org>
Date: 2022-07-29T12:22:26Z
Lists: pgsql-hackers 
On Fri, Jul 29, 2022 at 12:55 AM Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
> It would not be profitable to flatten the range table before we've
> done remove_useless_joins.  We'd end up with useless entries from
> subqueries that ultimately aren't there.  We could perhaps do it
> after we finish that phase, but I don't really see the point: it
> wouldn't be better than what we do now, just the same work at a
> different time.

That's not quite my question, though. Why do we ever build a non-flat
range table in the first place? Like, instead of assigning indexes
relative to the current subquery level, why not just assign them
relative to the whole query from the start? It can't really be that
we've done it this way because of remove_useless_joins(), because
we've been building separate range tables and later flattening them
for longer than join removal has existed as a feature.

What bugs me is that it's very much not free. By building a bunch of
separate range tables and combining them later, we generate extra
work: we have to go back and adjust RT indexes after-the-fact. We pay
that overhead for every query, not just the ones that end up with some
unused entries in the range table. And why would it matter if we did
end up with some useless entries in the range table, anyway? If
there's some semantic difference, we could add a flag to mark those
entries as needing to be ignored, which seems way better than crawling
all over the whole tree adjusting RTIs everywhere.

I don't really expect that we're ever going to change this -- and
certainly not on this thread. The idea of running around and replacing
RT indexes all over the tree is deeply embedded in the system. But are
we really sure we want to add a second kind of index that we have to
run around and adjust at the same time?

If we are, so be it, I guess. It just looks really ugly and unnecessary to me.

-- 
Robert Haas
EDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com

Commits

  1. Stamp 19beta1.

  2. Revert "Don't lock partitions pruned by initial pruning"

  3. Ensure first ModifyTable rel initialized if all are pruned

  4. Fix bug in cbc127917 to handle nested Append correctly

  5. Remove unstable test suite added by 525392d57

  6. Don't lock partitions pruned by initial pruning

  7. Fix an oversight in cbc127917 to handle MERGE correctly

  8. Track unpruned relids to avoid processing pruned relations

  9. Perform runtime initial pruning outside ExecInitNode()

  10. Move PartitionPruneInfo out of plan nodes into PlannedStmt

  11. Fix setrefs.c's failure to do expression processing on prune steps.

  12. Remove obsolete executor cleanup code

  13. Revert "Move PartitionPruneInfo out of plan nodes into PlannedStmt"

  14. Move PartitioPruneInfo out of plan nodes into PlannedStmt

  15. Refactor and cleanup runtime partition prune code a little

  16. Remove some unnecessary fields from Plan trees.

  17. Remove more redundant relation locking during executor startup.

  18. Shut down Gather's children before shutting down Gather itself.