Re: Removing unneeded self joins

Alexander Korotkov <aekorotkov@gmail.com>

From: Alexander Korotkov <aekorotkov@gmail.com>
To: Alena Rybakina <a.rybakina@postgrespro.ru>
Cc: Andrei Lepikhov <lepihov@gmail.com>, Richard Guo <guofenglinux@gmail.com>, Ranier Vilela <ranier.vf@gmail.com>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers@lists.postgresql.org>, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>, Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com>, Alexander Lakhin <exclusion@gmail.com>, "Gregory Stark (as CFM)" <stark.cfm@gmail.com>, Michał Kłeczek <michal@kleczek.org>, Dean Rasheed <dean.a.rasheed@gmail.com>
Date: 2025-04-26T20:05:27Z
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Commits

Same data as JSON: GET /api/v1/messages/:b64id/commits the thread's linked commits as JSON, with link sources. API reference →
  1. Remove GUC_NOT_IN_SAMPLE from enable_self_join_elimination

  2. Put enable_self_join_elimination into postgresql.conf.sample

  3. Get rid of ojrelid local variable in remove_rel_from_query()

  4. Implement Self-Join Elimination

  5. Revert: Remove useless self-joins

  6. Replace lateral references to removed rels in subqueries

  7. Replace relids in lateral subquery parse tree during SJE

  8. Forbid SJE with result relation

  9. Fix misuse of RelOptInfo.unique_for_rels cache by SJE

  10. Replace the relid in some missing fields during SJE

  11. Revert 56-bit relfilenode change and follow-up commits.

  12. Stabilize timetz test across DST transitions.

  13. Speed up finding EquivalenceClasses for a given set of rels

  14. Fix mark-and-restore-skipping test case to not be a self-join.

Attachments

On Sat, Apr 26, 2025 at 11:04 PM Alexander Korotkov
<aekorotkov@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Sun, Apr 6, 2025 at 12:02 AM Alena Rybakina
> <a.rybakina@postgrespro.ru> wrote:
> > Should we add more regression tests covering these cases?
> >
> > I experimented with some examples like this and noticed that it does affect cardinality estimation, though I'm not sure the impact is significant.
> > I used the tables from the regression tests, so if they’re appropriate for reproducing this case, it should be straightforward to add them.
>
> Thank you for your feedback.  I've check the cases you've provided.  I
> found that the differences here are related to the SJE itself, not to
> changes regarding PHVs handling.  I think it generally OK that
> estimates are somewhat changed due to such significant query
> transformation.  Hopefully they should be improved in the majority of
> cases.
>
> I did some improvements to PHVs patch: revised comments and commit
> message.  I'm going to push it if no objections.

Uh, v2 was there already.  That should be v3.

------
Regards,
Alexander Korotkov
Supabase