Re: POC, WIP: OR-clause support for indexes
Alexander Korotkov <aekorotkov@gmail.com>
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 Sat, Aug 24, 2024 at 4:08 PM Alena Rybakina <a.rybakina@postgrespro.ru> wrote: > On 23.08.2024 19:38, Alexander Korotkov wrote: > > Hi, Alena! > > > > On Fri, Aug 23, 2024 at 5:06 PM Alena Rybakina > > <a.rybakina@postgrespro.ru> wrote: > >> To be fair, I fixed this before [0] by selecting the appropriate group > >> of "or" expressions to transform them to "ANY" expression and then > >> checking for compatibility with the index column. maybe we should try > >> this too? I can think about it. > >> > >> [0] > >> https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/531fc0ab-371e-4235-97e3-dd2d077b6995%40postgrespro.ru > > I probably didn't get your message. Which patch version you think > > resolve the problem? I see [0] doesn't contain any patch. > Sorry, I got the links mixed up. We need this link [0]. Still confusion. If that's another [0] from [0] in the cited message then it seems you missed new link in your last message. ------ Regards, Alexander Korotkov Supabase