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 7:45 AM Alexander Korotkov <aekorotkov@gmail.com> wrote: > Andrei, thank you for your opinion. Just for the record, I'm still > exploring this and will reply later today or tomorrow. The logic that allows this to work for the case of IN() lists appears in transformAExprIn(), which is in parse_expr.c. I wonder if it would be possible to do something similar at the point where the patch does its conversion to a SAOP. What do you think? The transformAExprIn() logic doesn't directly care about operator families. It works by using coercions, which opfamily authors are formally required to promise cannot affect sort order. According to the sgml docs: "Another requirement for a multiple-data-type family is that any implicit or binary-coercion casts that are defined between data types included in the operator family must not change the associated sort ordering". This logic seems to always do the right thing for cases like my IN() test case from today, which should have an array of the type of the widest integer type from btree/integer_ops (so a bigint[] SAOP for that specific test case). There won't ever be a "cannot coerce to common array type" error because logic in select_common_type() aims to choose a common array type that every individual expression can be implicitly cast to. It can fail to identify a common type, but AFAICT only in cases where that actually makes sense. -- Peter Geoghegan