Re: POC, WIP: OR-clause support for indexes

Alexander Korotkov <aekorotkov@gmail.com>

From: Alexander Korotkov <aekorotkov@gmail.com>
To: Alena Rybakina <a.rybakina@postgrespro.ru>
Cc: Andrei Lepikhov <lepihov@gmail.com>, Nikolay Shaplov <dhyan@nataraj.su>, pgsql-hackers@lists.postgresql.org, jian he <jian.universality@gmail.com>, Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com>, pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org, Peter Geoghegan <pg@bowt.ie>, Marcos Pegoraro <marcos@f10.com.br>, teodor@sigaev.ru, Peter Eisentraut <peter@eisentraut.org>, Ranier Vilela <ranier.vf@gmail.com>
Date: 2024-08-24T13:23:18Z
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. Make group_similar_or_args() reorder clause list as little as possible

  2. Allow usage of match_orclause_to_indexcol() for joins

  3. Skip not SOAP-supported indexes while transforming an OR clause into SAOP

  4. Remove the wrong assertion from match_orclause_to_indexcol()

  5. Teach bitmap path generation about transforming OR-clauses to SAOP's

  6. Transform OR-clauses to SAOP's during index matching

  7. Fix the value of or_to_any_transform_limit in postgresql.conf.sample

  8. Transform OR clauses to ANY expression

  9. MergeAttributes code deduplication

  10. SEARCH and CYCLE clauses

  11. Improve estimation of OR clauses using extended statistics.

  12. Teach btree to handle ScalarArrayOpExpr quals natively.

  13. Revise collation derivation method and expression-tree representation.

  14. Instead of trying to force WHERE clauses into CNF or DNF normal form,

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