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 Mon, Oct 30, 2023 at 6:40 AM Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com> wrote: > I agree with that, with some caveats, mainly that the reverse is to > some extent also true. Maybe not completely, because arguably the > ANY() formulation should just be straight-up easier to deal with, but > in principle, the two are equivalent and it shouldn't matter which > representation we pick. I recently looked into MySQL's handling of these issues, which is more mature and better documented than what we can do. EXPLAIN ANALYZE will show an IN() list as if the query had been written as a list of ORs, even though it can efficiently execute an index scan that uses IN()/"OR var = constant" lists. So I agree with what you said here. It is perhaps just as accident of history that we're talking about converting to a ScalarArrayOpExpr, rather than talking about converting to some other clause type that we associate with OR lists. The essential point is that there ought to be one clause type that is easier to deal with. > But practically, it may, and we need to be sure that we don't put in > place a translation that is theoretically a win but in practice leads > to large regressions. Avoiding regressions here is more important than > capturing all the possible gains. A patch that wins in some scenarios > and does nothing in others can be committed; a patch that wins in even > more scenarios but causes serious regressions in some cases probably > can't. I agree. Most of the really big wins here will come from simple transformations. I see no reason why we can't take an incremental approach. In fact I think we almost have to do so, since as I understand it the transformations are just infeasible in certain extreme cases. -- Peter Geoghegan