Re: POC, WIP: OR-clause support for indexes
Peter Geoghegan <pg@bowt.ie>
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 2:40 PM Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com> wrote: > > 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. OK. To be clear, I don't think that it's essential that we have equivalent behavior in those cases where the patch applies its transformations. I have no objections to committing the patch without any handling for that. It's an important patch, and I really want it to get into 18 in a form that everybody can live with. -- Peter Geoghegan