public inbox for [email protected]
help / color / mirror / Atom feedFrom: Alena Rybakina <[email protected]>
To: Alexander Korotkov <[email protected]>
Cc: Pavel Borisov <[email protected]>
Cc: Andrei Lepikhov <[email protected]>
Cc: Alexander Lakhin <[email protected]>
Cc: [email protected]
Subject: Re: POC, WIP: OR-clause support for indexes
Date: Fri, 28 Mar 2025 15:23:24 +0300
Message-ID: <[email protected]> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CAPpHfdu71LCrXfwaRot1u_xfx7r92VFvZNRLvQJS79B3XFmBhg@mail.gmail.com>
References: <[email protected]>
<CAPpHfdtgcye9ELaLHw4ZOUxWQ9t1P=oBDJX8KwwOHqasESdXQQ@mail.gmail.com>
<CAPpHfdv+jtNwofg-p5z86jLYZUTt6tR17Wy00ta0dL=wHQN3ZA@mail.gmail.com>
<[email protected]>
<[email protected]>
<CAPpHfdvehQbCpQG9zYr739y2nXQkE=FYsat5VE-pDoB4RDPfBw@mail.gmail.com>
<[email protected]>
<CAPpHfdtPz+J-n6=qAMBqx1p88Ut_cbS9JRbL+EKRpWY04tGcRg@mail.gmail.com>
<[email protected]>
<CAPpHfdumgFuUihGqrmDVR5FnzOLsAah-ZdZ269FgsUrOeNU6rw@mail.gmail.com>
<[email protected]>
<CALT9ZEE94JN01za2o872foQErgyLHaX7OnOtoh70QbmXP7=S2A@mail.gmail.com>
<[email protected]>
<CALT9ZEEyivV=CDE=CCf8JwT5dU2epBDmbiRyVg8fO7-m6rud7g@mail.gmail.com>
<[email protected]>
<CAPpHfdu71LCrXfwaRot1u_xfx7r92VFvZNRLvQJS79B3XFmBhg@mail.gmail.com>
On 28.03.2025 02:18, Alexander Korotkov wrote:
> Hi!
>
> On Mon, Mar 24, 2025 at 2:46 PM Alena Rybakina
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>> I agree with Andrey's changes and think we should fix this, because otherwise it might be inconvenient.
>> For example, without this changes we will have to have different test output files for the same query for different versions of Postres in extensions if the whole change is only related to the order of column output for a transformation that was not applied.
> I agree with problem spotted by Andrei: it should be preferred to
> preserve original order of clauses as much as possible. The approach
> implemented in Andrei's patch seems fragile for me. Original order is
> preserved if we didn't find any group. But once we find a single
> group original order might be destroyed completely.
>
> The attached patch changes the reordering algorithm of
> group_similar_or_args() in the following way. We reorder each group
> of similar clauses so that the first item of the group stays in place,
> but all the other items are moved after it. So, if there are no
> similar clauses, the order of clauses stays the same. When there are
> some groups, only required reordering happens while the rest of the
> clauses remain in their places.
>
I agree with your code in general, but to be honest, double qsort
confused me a little.
I understood why it is needed - we need to sort the elements so that
they stand next to each other if they can be assigned to the same group,
and then sort the groups themselves according to the set identifier.
I may be missing something, but in the worst case we can get the
complexity of qsort O(n^2), right? And I saw the letter where you
mentioned this, but it is possible to use mergesort algorithm instead of
qsort, which in the worst case gives n * O(n) complexity?
--
Regards,
Alena Rybakina
Postgres Professional
view thread (57+ 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]
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