Re: Use merge-based matching for MCVs in eqjoinsel
Ilia Evdokimov <ilya.evdokimov@tantorlabs.com>
From: Ilia Evdokimov <ilya.evdokimov@tantorlabs.com>
To: David Geier <geidav.pg@gmail.com>, pgsql-hackers@lists.postgresql.org
Date: 2025-09-09T07:29:36Z
Lists: pgsql-hackers
Hi David,
On 08.09.2025 17:36, David Geier wrote:
> Do you think anything else needs changes in the patch?
From an architectural perspective, I think the patch is already in good
shape. However, I have some suggestions regarding code style:
1. I would move McvHashEntry, McvHashContext, he new hash table
definition, hash_mcv and are_mcvs_equal to the top.
2. I’m not sure get_hash_func_oid() is needed at all – it seems we
could do without it.
3. It would be better to name the parameters matchProductFrequencies ->
matchprodfreq, nMatches -> nmatches, hasMatch1 -> hasmatch1,
hasMatch2 -> hasmatch2 in eqjoinsel_inner_with_hashtable().
4. As I wrote earlier, since we now have a dedicated function
eqjoinsel_inner_with_hashtable(), perhaps it could be used in both
eqjoinsel_inner() and eqjoinsel_semi(). And since the hash-based
search was factored out, maybe it would make sense to also factor
out the O(N^2) nested loop implementation?
5. I think it would be helpful to add a comment explaining that using a
hash table is not efficient when the MCV array length equals 1:
if (Min(statsSlot1->nvalues, statsSlot2->nvalues) == 1)
return false;
> Did you have a
> chance to check tables with just few MCVs or are there any queries in
> the JOB which regress with very small default_statistics_target?
Sure. I need some time to check this.
--
Best regards,
Ilia Evdokimov,
Tantor Labs LLC,
https://tantorlabs.com