Re: Memoize ANTI and SEMI JOIN inner
Andrei Lepikhov <lepihov@gmail.com>
From: Andrei Lepikhov <lepihov@gmail.com>
To: David Rowley <dgrowleyml@gmail.com>
Cc: PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org>
Date: 2025-03-21T15:56:09Z
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 →
-
Enable use of Memoize for ANTI joins
- 0da29e4cb161 19 (unreleased) landed
Attachments
- v1-0001-Memoise-the-inner-of-SEMI-and-ANTI-join.patch (text/plain) patch v1-0001
On 20/3/2025 07:02, David Rowley wrote: > On Thu, 20 Mar 2025 at 06:16, Andrei Lepikhov <lepihov@gmail.com> wrote: >> How can we be sure that semi or anti-join needs only one tuple? I think >> it would be enough to control the absence of join clauses and filters in >> the join. Unfortunately, we only have such a guarantee in the plan >> creation stage (maybe even setrefs.c). So, it seems we need to invent an >> approach like AlternativeSubplan. > > I suggest looking at what 9e215378d did. You might be able to also > allow semi and anti-joins providing the cache keys cover the entire > join condition. I think this might be safe as Nested Loop will only > ask its inner subnode for the first match before skipping to the next > outer row and with anti-join, there's no reason to look for additional > rows after the first. Semi-join and unique joins do the same thing in > nodeNestloop.c. To save doing additional checks at run-time, the code > does: Thank you for the clue! I almost took the wrong direction. I have attached the new patch, which includes corrected comments for better clarification of the changes, as well as some additional tests. I now feel much more confident about this version since I have resolved that concern. -- regards, Andrei Lepikhov