public inbox for [email protected]
help / color / mirror / Atom feedFrom: Alexander Korotkov <[email protected]>
To: Alena Rybakina <[email protected]>
Cc: Andrei Lepikhov <[email protected]>
Cc: jian he <[email protected]>
Cc: Robert Haas <[email protected]>
Cc: [email protected]
Cc: Peter Geoghegan <[email protected]>
Cc: Finnerty, Jim <[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: Mon, 17 Jun 2024 15:11:09 +0300
Message-ID: <CAPpHfdv087igFrMiU3yghtG9SmmYoWk0jP8WFJ9yR301CHit+w@mail.gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <[email protected]>
References: <[email protected]>
<[email protected]>
<CAPpHfdtACtU_XbuNf9mgDBsTH1cN=i+uASXKBX_rvQk6zQ3MdQ@mail.gmail.com>
<[email protected]>
<CAPpHfdsAWGF2VvcszNofc32Sa2pefBpgY1nw2aYV=FTG7Q3wyA@mail.gmail.com>
<[email protected]>
<CAPpHfdutHt31sdt2rfU=4fsDMWxf6tvtnHARgCzLY2Tf21+fgw@mail.gmail.com>
<[email protected]>
<CAPpHfdsADL+agHnnjvi_42hNJWQdHK76SVPbNjsqAyHzxOxv8w@mail.gmail.com>
<[email protected]>
<CAPpHfdtSXxhdv3mLOLjEewGeXJ+Ftfhjqodn1WWuq5JLsKx48g@mail.gmail.com>
<[email protected]>
<CAPpHfdu4YJa5xCaOQnLzk4qsutRWrJGbcffVuZ=6R=eTAdMLig@mail.gmail.com>
<[email protected]>
<CAPpHfdtGmUHv=E4QWGWHk2QUuJ-x0mTNBssW_Ehv2dcOQ2L66g@mail.gmail.com>
<CAPpHfduah1PLzajBJFDmp7+MZuaWYpie2p+GsV0r03fcGghQ-g@mail.gmail.com>
<[email protected]>
On Mon, Jun 17, 2024 at 1:33 PM Alena Rybakina
<[email protected]> wrote:
> I noticed that 7 libraries have been added to src/backend/optimizer/plan/initsplan.c, and as far as I remember, Tom Lane has already expressed doubts about the approach that requires adding a large number of libraries [0], but I'm afraid I'm out of ideas about alternative approach.
Thank you for pointing. Right, the number of extra headers included
was one of points for criticism on this patch. I'll look to move this
functionality elsewhere, while the stage of transformation could
probably be the same.
> In addition, I checked the fix in the previous cases that you wrote earlier [1] and noticed that SeqScan continues to generate, unfortunately, without converting expressions:
I've rechecked and see I made wrong conclusion about this. The plan
regression is still here. But I'm still looking to workaround this
without extra GUC.
I think we need to additionally do something like [1], but take
further steps to avoid planning overhead when not necessary. In
particular, I think we should only consider splitting SAOP for bitmap
OR in the following cases:
1. There are partial indexes with predicates over target column.
2. There are multiple indexes covering target column and different
subsets of other columns presented in restrictions.
3. There are indexes covreing target column without support of SAOP
(amsearcharray == false).
Hopefully this should skip generation of useless bitmap paths in
majority cases. Thoughts?
Links.
1. https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/67bd918d-285e-44d2-a207-f52d9a4c35e6%40postgrespro.ru
------
Regards,
Alexander Korotkov
Supabase
view thread (13+ 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]
Subject: Re: POC, WIP: OR-clause support for indexes
In-Reply-To: <CAPpHfdv087igFrMiU3yghtG9SmmYoWk0jP8WFJ9yR301CHit+w@mail.gmail.com>
* 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