Horton

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

Alena Rybakina <a.rybakina@postgrespro.ru>

View thread
From: Alena Rybakina <a.rybakina@postgrespro.ru>
To: Alexander Korotkov <aekorotkov@gmail.com>
Cc: Pavel Borisov <pashkin.elfe@gmail.com>, Andrei Lepikhov <lepihov@gmail.com>, Alexander Lakhin <exclusion@gmail.com>, pgsql-hackers@lists.postgresql.org
Date: 2025-03-28T12:23:24Z
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 28.03.2025 02:18, Alexander Korotkov wrote:
> Hi!
>
> On Mon, Mar 24, 2025 at 2:46 PM Alena Rybakina
> <a.rybakina@postgrespro.ru>  wrote:
>> I agree with Andrey's changes and think we should fix this, because otherwise it might be inconvenient.
>> For example, without this changes we will have to have different test output files for the same query for different versions of Postres in extensions if the whole change is only related to the order of column output for a transformation that was not applied.
> I agree with problem spotted by Andrei: it should be preferred to
> preserve original order of clauses as much as possible.  The approach
> implemented in Andrei's patch seems fragile for me.  Original order is
> preserved if we didn't find any group.  But once we find a single
> group original order might be destroyed completely.
>
> The attached patch changes the reordering algorithm of
> group_similar_or_args() in the following way.  We reorder each group
> of similar clauses so that the first item of the group stays in place,
> but all the other items are moved after it.  So, if there are no
> similar clauses, the order of clauses stays the same.  When there are
> some groups, only required reordering happens while the rest of the
> clauses remain in their places.
>

I agree with your code in general, but to be honest, double qsort 
confused me a little.

I understood why it is needed - we need to sort the elements so that 
they stand next to each other if they can be assigned to the same group, 
and then sort the groups themselves according to the set identifier.

I may be missing something, but in the worst case we can get the 
complexity of qsort O(n^2), right? And I saw the letter where you 
mentioned this, but it is possible to use mergesort algorithm instead of 
qsort, which in the worst case gives n * O(n) complexity?

-- 
Regards,
Alena Rybakina
Postgres Professional