Thread

Re: [SQL/PGQ] Early pruning for GRAPH_TABLE path generation

Henson Choi <assam258@gmail.com> — 2026-05-09T14:52:16Z

Hi Junwang,

Thanks for an interesting thread, and for picking this up — it has
been a useful occasion to re-examine assumptions I had carried over
from a different graph model.

My background is on AgensGraph, where labels form an inheritance
hierarchy (rather than Neo4j-style multi-label tag sets), so a path
pattern rewrites against a single parent table per position and the
fan-out across labels is left to the planner's existing inheritance
machinery. The rewriter never enumerates per-element combinations, so
an N^K blow-up like Satya's was simply not on the radar there.

SQL/PGQ instead designates graph identity through the schema itself,
so each pattern position carries a set of candidate element tables
and the rewriter has to materialize each schema-feasible join
combination — a (vertex, edge, vertex, ...) sequence of element
tables — as its own SELECT branch, with all such branches joined by
UNION ALL. The number of *feasible* join combinations is bounded by
the schema graph's connectivity and is usually small; the current
rewriter's naive shape, however, is to enumerate the full N^K
candidate space first and reject infeasible combinations only
afterwards. The patch tackles exactly that part.

To be clear, I do not mean this as a criticism of the original
implementer. For sizeable features I tend to prefer a deliberately
naive implementation first — getting the full functionality working
end-to-end before optimizing — and that approach is even more
valuable in team settings, since a working baseline lets additional
contributors join much earlier. The current shape of
generate_queries_for_path_pattern_recurse() reads exactly like such a
baseline, and this patch is precisely the kind of focused follow-up
improvement it invites.

When I thought about this independently, I had reached for the dual
formulation — "extend the prefix only along feasible edges" rather
than "enumerate everything and prune" — and my intuition was that the
two should produce the same surviving set, though I have not worked
that through rigorously. Either way, your "early pruning" framing is
the better one for the patch itself: it stays close to the existing
code structure and lets the change read as a small refinement of
generate_queries_for_path_pattern_recurse() rather than a
reorganization of how candidates are walked. That makes review and
incremental landing materially easier.

The same reframing also explains, after the fact, why the discrepancy
between Ashutosh's quick runs and Satya's 81 GB case was so large:
the cost being measured is in large part infeasible enumeration,
which a forward-moved check eliminates regardless of pattern length
or schema size in realistic graphs.

I have not gone through the patch at the code level yet, but the
shape of the problem and of your fix is clear enough from the
description. My personal take, with that caveat, is that early
pruning, together with the CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS that Satya already
proposed in the earlier thread [1], feels like the right pair to
land first; the explicit hard limit, in turn, is probably best
revisited only if a real case turns up where even those two combined
are not enough. That keeps the immediate change narrow and
semantics-preserving while leaving the policy question open for
evidence rather than upfront estimation.

There is a fairly recent precedent in PostgreSQL itself that I think
supports this ordering. I have been following — and participating in
— Tatsuo Ishii's Row Pattern Recognition thread [2] since earlier
this year, and that work ran into a structurally similar concern: in
its earlier implementation the engine could undergo a combinatorial
explosion of pattern-candidate states. A memory-based limit was
floated as one mitigation, but it never actually converged into a
design — the conversation around an explicit limit simply faded out
as a layered set of pruning and early-termination rules accumulated
incrementally and brought the state space back under control. CFI
and stack-depth checks, by contrast, were treated as independently
necessary throughout and stayed in the design.

The shape of this thread feels analogous, and the same staged
approach (structural fix + CFI first, hard limit only if a residual
case genuinely demands it) is, I suspect, what will hold up
here as well.

I'll set aside time separately to do a proper line-by-line review and
follow up.

Regards,
Henson

[1]
https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/CAHg%2BQDe8JU%2BERqA2xwjrg_ZptvH_v0T6PS9_P_ZgyYzD5h-Grw%40mail.gmail.com
[2]
https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/flat/20230625.210509.1276733411677577841.t-ishii%40sranhm.sra.co.jp