public inbox for [email protected]
help / color / mirror / Atom feedFrom: Andrei Lepikhov <[email protected]>
To: Alexander Korotkov <[email protected]>
To: Alena Rybakina <[email protected]>
Cc: Nikolay Shaplov <[email protected]>
Cc: [email protected]
Cc: jian he <[email protected]>
Cc: Robert Haas <[email protected]>
Cc: [email protected]
Cc: Peter Geoghegan <[email protected]>
Cc: Marcos Pegoraro <[email protected]>
Cc: [email protected]
Cc: Tomas Vondra <[email protected]>
Cc: Peter Eisentraut <[email protected]>
Cc: Ranier Vilela <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: POC, WIP: OR-clause support for indexes
Date: Wed, 21 Aug 2024 15:08:14 +0200
Message-ID: <[email protected]> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CAPpHfduFJHTNGCTFWt4GFs-E6Ts8xS5mCsKOYKBsZAmoOr8ZSA@mail.gmail.com>
References: <[email protected]>
<[email protected]>
<CAPpHfdu1AZK91T8Yy4VYNYO+TEX9dSFWK59sRB6K9eM=zEjHOA@mail.gmail.com>
<8969055.VV5PYv0bhD@thinkpad-pgpro>
<[email protected]>
<CAPpHfdsrtAB=0B-qYuQMPgyyy=-CycFJfzTWO_30nx27vXc3dA@mail.gmail.com>
<[email protected]>
<CAPpHfdvUEjkuFNUbg7GuLkXotwvpDgBYz4S8YcE=LRf9aBQh-Q@mail.gmail.com>
<[email protected]>
<CAPpHfdu5iQOjF93vGbjidsQkhHvY2NSm29duENYH_cbhC6x+Mg@mail.gmail.com>
<CAPpHfdv9GrXfCOdPsMszBrORig+nW2+JBuMD-np_keVuKJ7bdQ@mail.gmail.com>
<[email protected]>
<CAPpHfduTM2W3kmiN1=5fvgcu6yA5=ghq82OkvLvZC8Mh9PpEuA@mail.gmail.com>
<[email protected]>
<[email protected]>
<CAPpHfduFJHTNGCTFWt4GFs-E6Ts8xS5mCsKOYKBsZAmoOr8ZSA@mail.gmail.com>
On 21/8/2024 02:17, Alexander Korotkov wrote:
> Also, I convert the check you've introduced in the previous message to
> op_in_opfamily(), and introduced collation check similar to
> match_opclause_to_indexcol().
Hi,
I passed through the patches with fresh sight. Conceptually, this
approach looks much better than the previous series.
Just for the record: previously, we attempted to resolve two issues in
one - improve the execution plan and save cycles during the
optimisation. As I see it, it is almost impossible in this feature. So,
I should come to terms with carrying long OR lists through the planning
and the additional overhead this feature generates.
I also see that the optimiser has obtained additional planning
strategies with these patches and hasn't lost any.
Couple of findings:
First:
/* Only operator clauses scan match */
Should it be:
/* Only operator clauses can match */
?
The second one:
When creating IndexClause, we assign the original and derived clauses to
the new, containing transformed array. But logically, we should set the
clause with a list of ORs as the original. Why did you do so?
--
regards,
Andrei Lepikhov
Postgres Professional
view thread (78+ messages) latest in thread
reply
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Reply to all the recipients using the --to and --cc options:
reply via email
To: [email protected]
Cc: [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected]
Subject: Re: POC, WIP: OR-clause support for indexes
In-Reply-To: <[email protected]>
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
This inbox is served by agora; see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox