Horton

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

Alexander Korotkov <aekorotkov@gmail.com>

View thread
From: Alexander Korotkov <aekorotkov@gmail.com>
To: Andrei Lepikhov <a.lepikhov@postgrespro.ru>
Cc: jian he <jian.universality@gmail.com>, Alena Rybakina <a.rybakina@postgrespro.ru>, Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com>, pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org, Peter Geoghegan <pg@bowt.ie>, Marcos Pegoraro <marcos@f10.com.br>, teodor@sigaev.ru, Tomas Vondra <tomas.vondra@enterprisedb.com>, Peter Eisentraut <peter@eisentraut.org>, Ranier Vilela <ranier.vf@gmail.com>
Date: 2024-06-17T12:14:27Z
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. 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 Mon, Jun 17, 2024 at 7:02 AM Andrei Lepikhov
<a.lepikhov@postgrespro.ru> wrote:
> On 6/14/24 19:00, Alexander Korotkov wrote:
> > This patch could use some polishing, but I'd like to first hear some
> > feedback on general design.
> Thanks for your time and efforts. I have skimmed through the code—there
> is a minor fix in the attachment.
> First and foremost, I think this approach can survive.
> But generally, I'm not happy with manipulations over a restrictinfo clause:
> 1. While doing that, we should remember the fields of the RestrictInfo
> clause. It may need to be changed, too, or it can require such a change
> in the future if someone adds new logic.
> 2. We should remember the link to the RestrictInfo: see how the caller
> of the  distribute_restrictinfo_to_rels routine manipulates its fields
> right after the distribution.
> 3. Remember caches and cached decisions inside the RestrictInfo
> structure: replacing the clause should we change these fields too?
>
> These were the key reasons why we shifted the code to the earlier stages
> in the previous incarnation. So, going this way we should recheck all
> the  fields of this structure and analyse how the transformation can
> [potentially] affect their values.

I see your points.  Making this at the stage of restrictinfos seems
harder, and there are open questions in the patch.

I'd like to hear how Tom feels about this.  Is this the right
direction, or should we try another way?

------
Regards,
Alexander Korotkov
Supabase