From: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
To: Arseniy Mukhin <arseniy.mukhin.dev@gmail.com>
cc: washwithcare@gmail.com, pgsql-bugs@lists.postgresql.org,
        Nikita Glukhov <glukhov.n.a@gmail.com>,
        Alexander Korotkov <aekorotkov@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: BUG #19031: pg_trgm infinite loop on certain cases
In-reply-to: 
 <CAE7r3MK19VyQU_K2EYasMaUBNBd9n82qAmTfvq+vGFr320ZM=A@mail.gmail.com>
References: <19031-0638148643d25548@postgresql.org>
 <969700.1756169663@sss.pgh.pa.us>
 <CAE7r3MJp=0BHQLU_GpHdXJH=Dub+gvtuOziyin3oZyZO9tG-cw@mail.gmail.com>
 <1081531.1756221406@sss.pgh.pa.us>
 <CAE7r3MK19VyQU_K2EYasMaUBNBd9n82qAmTfvq+vGFr320ZM=A@mail.gmail.com>
Comments: In-reply-to Arseniy Mukhin <arseniy.mukhin.dev@gmail.com>
	message dated "Wed, 27 Aug 2025 11:33:03 +0300"
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-ID: <1391110.1756305146.1@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Date: Wed, 27 Aug 2025 10:32:26 -0400
Message-ID: <1391111.1756305146@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Archived-At: 
 <https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/1391111.1756305146%40sss.pgh.pa.us>
Precedence: bulk

Arseniy Mukhin <arseniy.mukhin.dev@gmail.com> writes:
> Good point, thanks for the explanation. I forgot that there can be
> many attributes. And I agree, the more determinism in the system, the
> easier it is to work with it and the less room for bugs. OTOH it seems
> from the performance POV we want to have the stricter keys to be the
> first so we do less work and fail fast on the first keys. It looks
> like these two rules (excludeOnly keys LAST and more restrictive keys
> FIRST) are kind of in conflict with each other. I tried to do some
> experiments and it's seems GIN quite sensitive to it, at least in this
> artificial example:

Yeah, it is.  I recall seeing some comments to the effect that
optimizing the order of scan keys would be a good thing, but if there
is any code in there that tries to do so, I'm not seeing where.
Seems like a fertile area for future research.

> With applying patch both queries show the same time (second one). So
> currently the user can tune the query by defining more restrictive
> keys first. With the proposed fix it looks like users will have less
> freedom here.

I think most people would consider it a bug if they have to tune the
order of the WHERE clauses manually.  The original statement of the
current bug was basically that: it worked in one order and not the
other.

			regards, tom lane