Re: POC, WIP: OR-clause support for indexes
Andrei Lepikhov <lepihov@gmail.com>
Commits
GET /api/v1/messages/:b64id/commits
the thread's linked commits as JSON, with link sources.
API reference →
-
Make group_similar_or_args() reorder clause list as little as possible
- 775a06d44c04 18.0 landed
-
Allow usage of match_orclause_to_indexcol() for joins
- 627d63419e22 18.0 landed
-
Skip not SOAP-supported indexes while transforming an OR clause into SAOP
- 5bba0546eecb 18.0 landed
-
Remove the wrong assertion from match_orclause_to_indexcol()
- d4d11940df94 18.0 landed
-
Teach bitmap path generation about transforming OR-clauses to SAOP's
- ae4569161a27 18.0 landed
-
Transform OR-clauses to SAOP's during index matching
- d4378c0005e6 18.0 landed
-
Fix the value of or_to_any_transform_limit in postgresql.conf.sample
- 2af75e117478 17.0 landed
-
Transform OR clauses to ANY expression
- 72bd38cc99a1 17.0 landed
-
MergeAttributes code deduplication
- 64444ce071f6 17.0 cited
-
SEARCH and CYCLE clauses
- 3696a600e229 14.0 cited
-
Improve estimation of OR clauses using extended statistics.
- 25a9e54d2db3 14.0 cited
-
Teach btree to handle ScalarArrayOpExpr quals natively.
- 9e8da0f75731 9.2.0 cited
-
Revise collation derivation method and expression-tree representation.
- b310b6e31ce5 9.1.0 cited
-
Instead of trying to force WHERE clauses into CNF or DNF normal form,
- 9888192fb773 8.0.0 cited
On 2/3/25 00:57, Alexander Korotkov wrote: > On Thu, Jan 30, 2025 at 3:23 PM Pavel Borisov <pashkin.elfe@gmail.com> wrote: >> On Tue, 28 Jan 2025 at 12:42, Andrei Lepikhov <lepihov@gmail.com> wrote: >>> >>> On 1/28/25 11:36, Andrei Lepikhov wrote: >>>> On 1/27/25 16:50, Alexander Korotkov wrote: >>>> qsort(matches, n, sizeof(OrArgIndexMatch), or_arg_index_match_cmp); >>>> >>>> To fit an index, the order of elements in the target array of the >>>> `ScalarArrayOpExpr` may change compared to the initial list of OR >>>> expressions. If there are indexes that cover the same set of columns but >>>> in reverse order, this could potentially alter the position of a >>>> Subplan. However, I believe this is a rare case; it is supported by the >>>> initial OR path and should be acceptable. >>> I beg your pardon - I forgot that we've restricted the feature's scope >>> and can't combine OR clauses into ScalarArrayOpExpr if the args list >>> contains references to different columns. >>> So, my note can't be applied here. >>> >>> -- >>> regards, Andrei Lepikhov >> >> I've looked at the patch v46-0001 >> Looks good to me. >> >> There is a test that demonstrates the behavior change. Maybe some more >> cases like are also worth adding to a test. >> >> +SELECT * FROM bitmap_split_or t1, bitmap_split_or t2 WHERE t1.a=t2.c >> OR (t1.a=t2.b OR t1.a=1); >> + QUERY PLAN >> +-------------------------------------------------------- >> + Nested Loop >> + -> Seq Scan on bitmap_split_or t2 >> + -> Index Scan using t_a_b_idx on bitmap_split_or t1 >> + Index Cond: (a = ANY (ARRAY[t2.c, t2.b, 1])) >> +(4 rows) >> + >> +EXPLAIN (COSTS OFF) >> +SELECT * FROM bitmap_split_or t1, bitmap_split_or t2 WHERE t1.c=t2.b OR t1.a=1; >> + QUERY PLAN >> +---------------------------------------------- >> + Nested Loop >> + Join Filter: ((t1.c = t2.b) OR (t1.a = 1)) >> + -> Seq Scan on bitmap_split_or t1 >> + -> Materialize >> + -> Seq Scan on bitmap_split_or t2 >> +(5 rows) >> + >> +EXPLAIN (COSTS OFF) > > Added more tests to join.sql I have made final pass through the changes. All looks good. Only one thing looks strange for me - multiple '42's in the output of the test. May be reduce output by an aggregate in the target list of the query? -- regards, Andrei Lepikhov