Received: from malur.postgresql.org ([217.196.149.56]) by arkaria.postgresql.org with esmtps (TLS1.3) tls TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (Exim 4.94.2) (envelope-from ) id 1tetb4-00GFhw-LC for pgsql-hackers@arkaria.postgresql.org; Mon, 03 Feb 2025 10:22:31 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=malur.postgresql.org) by malur.postgresql.org with esmtp (Exim 4.94.2) (envelope-from ) id 1tetb3-00C6tN-B1 for pgsql-hackers@arkaria.postgresql.org; Mon, 03 Feb 2025 10:22:29 +0000 Received: from makus.postgresql.org ([2001:4800:3e1:1::229]) by malur.postgresql.org with esmtps (TLS1.3) tls TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (Exim 4.94.2) (envelope-from ) id 1tetb2-00C6qt-Nl for pgsql-hackers@lists.postgresql.org; Mon, 03 Feb 2025 10:22:29 +0000 Received: from mail.postgrespro.ru ([93.174.131.139]) by makus.postgresql.org with esmtps (TLS1.3) tls TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (Exim 4.96) (envelope-from ) id 1tetax-002vgZ-34 for pgsql-hackers@lists.postgresql.org; Mon, 03 Feb 2025 10:22:27 +0000 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=postgrespro.ru; s=mx2023; t=1738578140; bh=gkJyYuQ8m8f1ZNcNQPor++JMnnz7q/JiJYaYMXQcda0=; h=Message-ID:Date:User-Agent:Subject:To:Cc:References:From: In-Reply-To:From; b=k26fGPQU/ZUkOGwTvi2bYvcenis1Tc7o1jxg5sZxklyM48jrLXbzEUjq93tdusQE+ 8qyG6w896NwjGCMflLDhKgCH0UHoSZpztXg22N1Q1Gxad8JD/yIWHk3YHH+YReNtq3 t/3VAjaJ82C/0/fUrVAfdwDFELuMMAPCQQV2L9O8Vrs/Y/70t1e4na6mODtAz+LQxr 8cg81kYF/KZ+CHz11pxDc7pFMYJ2wyuWiS1PjEV1nj7E1PfCed2aWxx2v0IvxKaeiM C5Ibmj0Jtzim8PGodw98dgHBTYG0SIiZ4KxV4rQaOPyEDFtiJ3ThQeN5HMOnp2I71K n7VM3cAXOizJw== Received: from [10.4.12.74] (unknown [93.174.131.141]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_128_GCM_SHA256 (128/128 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits) server-digest SHA256) (Client did not present a certificate) (Authenticated sender: a.rybakina@postgrespro.ru) by mail.postgrespro.ru (Postfix/587) with ESMTPSA id 6DFF860729; Mon, 3 Feb 2025 13:22:20 +0300 (MSK) Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="------------MVqQs43PGQhHbcuJOZcngOL3" Message-ID: <036d64e6-4d47-485c-b047-6664d452b3e8@postgrespro.ru> Date: Mon, 3 Feb 2025 13:22:20 +0300 MIME-Version: 1.0 User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird Subject: Re: POC, WIP: OR-clause support for indexes To: Alexander Korotkov Cc: Ranier Vilela , Alexander Lakhin , jian he , Robert Haas , Nikolay Shaplov , pgsql-hackers@lists.postgresql.org, pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org, Peter Geoghegan , Marcos Pegoraro , teodor@sigaev.ru, Peter Eisentraut , Andrei Lepikhov References: <567ED6CA.2040504@sigaev.ru> <37bf870a-22e0-4aba-b845-549482118f8d@gmail.com> <8174de69-9e1a-0827-0e81-ef97f56a5939@gmail.com> <3b717020-14d9-425f-8c60-ce336b5a23b3@postgrespro.ru> <43db6a40-5c5f-4909-ad62-3060b297e686@postgrespro.ru> <41ba3d47-2a48-476c-88d4-6ebd889a7af2@gmail.com> Content-Language: en-US From: Alena Rybakina In-Reply-To: X-KSMG-AntiPhishing: NotDetected, bases: 2025/02/03 09:42:00 X-KSMG-AntiSpam-Interceptor-Info: not scanned X-KSMG-AntiSpam-Status: not scanned, disabled by settings X-KSMG-AntiVirus: Kaspersky Secure Mail Gateway, version 2.1.0.7854, bases: 2025/02/03 07:33:00 #27201296 X-KSMG-AntiVirus-Status: NotDetected, skipped X-KSMG-LinksScanning: not scanned, disabled by settings X-KSMG-Message-Action: skipped X-KSMG-Rule-ID: 1 List-Id: List-Help: List-Subscribe: List-Post: List-Owner: List-Archive: Archived-At: Precedence: bulk This is a multi-part message in MIME format. --------------MVqQs43PGQhHbcuJOZcngOL3 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Thank you for updated version! I agree for your version of the code. On 02.02.2025 21:00, Alexander Korotkov wrote: > On Fri, Jan 31, 2025 at 4:31 PM Alena Rybakina > wrote: >> I started reviewing at the patch and saw some output "ERROR" in the output of the test and is it okay here? >> >> SELECT * FROM tenk1 t1 >> WHERE t1.thousand = 42 OR t1.thousand = (SELECT t2.tenthous FROM tenk1 t2 WHERE t2.thousand = t1.tenthous); >> ERROR: more than one row returned by a subquery used as an expression > The output is correct for this query. But the query is very > unfortunate for the regression test. I've revised query in the v47 > revision [1]. > > Links. > 1.https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/CAPpHfdsBZmNt9qUoJBqsQFiVDX1%3DyCKpuVAt1YnR7JCpP%3Dk8%2BA%40mail.gmail.com While analyzing the modified query plan from the regression test, I noticed that despite using a full seqscan for table t2 in the original plan, its results are cached by Materialize node, and this can significantly speed up the execution of the NestedLoop algorithm. For example, after running the query several times, I got results that show that the query execution time was twice as bad. Original plan: EXPLAIN ANALYZE SELECT * FROM bitmap_split_or t1, bitmap_split_or t2 WHERE t1.a=t2.b OR t1.a=1; QUERY PLAN -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Nested Loop (cost=0.00..70067.00 rows=2502499 width=24) (actual time=0.015..1123.247 rows=2003000 loops=1) Join Filter: ((t1.a = t2.b) OR (t1.a = 1)) Rows Removed by Join Filter: 1997000 Buffers: shared hit=22 -> Seq Scan on bitmap_split_or t1 (cost=0.00..31.00 rows=2000 width=12) (actual time=0.006..0.372 rows=2000 loops=1) Buffers: shared hit=11 -> Materialize (cost=0.00..41.00 rows=2000 width=12) (actual time=0.000..0.111 rows=2000 loops=2000) Storage: Memory Maximum Storage: 110kB Buffers: shared hit=11 -> Seq Scan on bitmap_split_or t2 (cost=0.00..31.00 rows=2000 width=12) (actual time=0.003..0.188 rows=2000 loops=1) Buffers: shared hit=11 Planning Time: 0.118 ms Execution Time: 1204.874 ms (13 rows) Query plan after the patch: EXPLAIN ANALYZE SELECT * FROM bitmap_split_or t1, bitmap_split_or t2 WHERE t1.a=t2.b OR t1.a=1; QUERY PLAN ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Nested Loop (cost=0.28..56369.00 rows=2502499 width=24) (actual time=0.121..2126.606 rows=2003000 loops=1) Buffers: shared hit=16009 read=2 -> Seq Scan on bitmap_split_or t2 (cost=0.00..31.00 rows=2000 width=12) (actual time=0.017..0.652 rows=2000 loops=1) Buffers: shared hit=11 -> Index Scan using t_a_b_idx on bitmap_split_or t1 (cost=0.28..18.15 rows=1002 width=12) (actual time=0.044..0.627 rows=1002 loops=2000) Index Cond: (a = ANY (ARRAY[t2.b, 1])) Buffers: shared hit=15998 read=2 Planning Time: 0.282 ms Execution Time: 2344.367 ms (9 rows) I'm afraid that we may lose this with this optimization. Maybe this can be taken into account somehow, what do you think? -- Regards, Alena Rybakina Postgres Professional --------------MVqQs43PGQhHbcuJOZcngOL3 Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit

Thank you for updated version! I agree for your version of the code.

On 02.02.2025 21:00, Alexander Korotkov wrote:
On Fri, Jan 31, 2025 at 4:31 PM Alena Rybakina
<a.rybakina@postgrespro.ru> wrote:

I started reviewing at the patch and saw some output "ERROR" in the output of the test and is it okay here?

SELECT * FROM tenk1 t1
WHERE t1.thousand = 42 OR t1.thousand = (SELECT t2.tenthous FROM tenk1 t2 WHERE t2.thousand = t1.tenthous);
ERROR: more than one row returned by a subquery used as an expression

The output is correct for this query.  But the query is very
unfortunate for the regression test.  I've revised query in the v47
revision [1].

Links.
1. https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/CAPpHfdsBZmNt9qUoJBqsQFiVDX1%3DyCKpuVAt1YnR7JCpP%3Dk8%2BA%40mail.gmail.com
While analyzing the modified query plan from the regression test, I noticed that despite using a full seqscan for table t2 in the original plan,
its results are cached by Materialize node, and this can significantly speed up the execution of the NestedLoop algorithm.

For example, after running the query several times, I got results that show that the query execution time was twice as bad.

Original plan:

EXPLAIN ANALYZE SELECT * FROM bitmap_split_or t1, bitmap_split_or t2 WHERE t1.a=t2.b OR t1.a=1; QUERY PLAN -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Nested Loop (cost=0.00..70067.00 rows=2502499 width=24) (actual time=0.015..1123.247 rows=2003000 loops=1) Join Filter: ((t1.a = t2.b) OR (t1.a = 1)) Rows Removed by Join Filter: 1997000 Buffers: shared hit=22 -> Seq Scan on bitmap_split_or t1 (cost=0.00..31.00 rows=2000 width=12) (actual time=0.006..0.372 rows=2000 loops=1) Buffers: shared hit=11 -> Materialize (cost=0.00..41.00 rows=2000 width=12) (actual time=0.000..0.111 rows=2000 loops=2000) Storage: Memory Maximum Storage: 110kB Buffers: shared hit=11 -> Seq Scan on bitmap_split_or t2 (cost=0.00..31.00 rows=2000 width=12) (actual time=0.003..0.188 rows=2000 loops=1) Buffers: shared hit=11 Planning Time: 0.118 ms Execution Time: 1204.874 ms (13 rows)

Query plan after the patch:

EXPLAIN ANALYZE SELECT * FROM bitmap_split_or t1, bitmap_split_or t2 WHERE t1.a=t2.b OR t1.a=1; QUERY PLAN ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Nested Loop (cost=0.28..56369.00 rows=2502499 width=24) (actual time=0.121..2126.606 rows=2003000 loops=1) Buffers: shared hit=16009 read=2 -> Seq Scan on bitmap_split_or t2 (cost=0.00..31.00 rows=2000 width=12) (actual time=0.017..0.652 rows=2000 loops=1) Buffers: shared hit=11 -> Index Scan using t_a_b_idx on bitmap_split_or t1 (cost=0.28..18.15 rows=1002 width=12) (actual time=0.044..0.627 rows=1002 loops=2000) Index Cond: (a = ANY (ARRAY[t2.b, 1])) Buffers: shared hit=15998 read=2 Planning Time: 0.282 ms Execution Time: 2344.367 ms (9 rows)

I'm afraid that we may lose this with this optimization. Maybe this can be taken into account somehow, what do you think? 

-- 
Regards,
Alena Rybakina
Postgres Professional
--------------MVqQs43PGQhHbcuJOZcngOL3--