Message-ID: <f052df9a-c714-4c60-92ba-9b5ae7e258b0@postgrespro.ru>
Date: Fri, 13 Oct 2023 16:03:50 +0700
MIME-Version: 1.0
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Subject: Re: Removing unneeded self joins
Content-Language: en-US
To: "a.rybakina" <a.rybakina@postgrespro.ru>,
 Alexander Korotkov <aekorotkov@gmail.com>
Cc: "Gregory Stark (as CFM)" <stark.cfm@gmail.com>,
 =?UTF-8?Q?Micha=C5=82_K=C5=82eczek?= <michal@kleczek.org>,
 PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers@lists.postgresql.org>
References: <64486b0b-0404-e39e-322d-0801154901f3@postgrespro.ru>
 <0fd15c10-eaa5-51bd-b5c7-e635fe03a94d@postgrespro.ru>
 <d9493d5a-b950-465e-f09b-62c92a23fba1@postgrespro.ru>
 <20221206184643.zya44h5auv6f45zp@awork3.anarazel.de>
 <36579124-f9d9-a51e-38b3-af3511921c7e@postgrespro.ru>
 <88079CBD-B5BB-4C61-A68B-A8C67599E1C7@kleczek.org>
 <CAM-w4HMZXW+hKc8C+WLQ+gdpEkoh9378a2UGKyZRz7mZVerG+Q@mail.gmail.com>
 <c97574c4-13e6-9107-26ab-af2bd626fc85@postgrespro.ru>
 <bcf2f3c5-fbdc-f85b-af3e-ebec616160f6@postgrespro.ru>
 <05469e80-454b-41d7-d04f-421f42bbd4a9@postgrespro.ru>
 <CAPpHfdt9G3EU+vXuqexhweEQoMF-acPUUFuB6hV2Kg0gCy7AjA@mail.gmail.com>
 <ebe66358-428c-439f-85dd-da72c9b2b0c2@postgrespro.ru>
 <CAPpHfdt-0kVV7O==aJEbjY2iGYBu+XBzTHEbPv_6sVNeC7fffQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <48c11b23-9c23-440e-9a3c-020e05196449@postgrespro.ru>
 <CAPpHfdsQkY0Gu7bQ9Ekdyzo_5Xxz74TYKbwmk1on1WAASpxXcQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <9eb86ca9-da3c-417f-8ce1-29c0ef5a4f50@postgrespro.ru>
 <29ddec15-a83f-4f24-b069-6e93c189b169@postgrespro.ru>
From: Andrei Lepikhov <a.lepikhov@postgrespro.ru>
Organization: Postgres Professional
In-Reply-To: <29ddec15-a83f-4f24-b069-6e93c189b169@postgrespro.ru>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Archived-At: 
 <https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/f052df9a-c714-4c60-92ba-9b5ae7e258b0%40postgrespro.ru>
Precedence: bulk

On 13/10/2023 15:56, a.rybakina wrote:
> 
>>> Also I've incorporated improvements from Alena Rybakina except one for
>>> skipping SJ removal when no SJ quals is found.  It's not yet clear for
>>> me if this check fix some cases. But at least optimization got skipped
>>> in some useful cases (as you can see in regression tests).
>>
>> Agree. I wouldn't say I like it too. But also, I suggest skipping some 
>> unnecessary assertions proposed in that patch:
>> Assert(toKeep->relid != -1); - quite strange. Why -1? Why not all the 
>> negative numbers, at least?
>> Assert(is_opclause(orinfo->clause)); - above we skip clauses with 
>> rinfo->mergeopfamilies == NIL. Each mergejoinable clause is already 
>> checked as is_opclause.
>> All these changes (see in the attachment) are optional.
>>
> I don't mind about asserts, maybe I misunderstood something in the patch.
> 
> About skipping SJ removal when no SJ quals is found, I assume it is 
> about it:
> 
> split_selfjoin_quals(root, restrictlist, &selfjoinquals,
>                                    &otherjoinquals, inner->relid, 
> outer->relid);
> 
> +            if (list_length(selfjoinquals) == 0)
> +             {
> +                 /*
> +                  * XXX:
> +                  * we would detect self-join without quals like 'x==x' 
> if we had
> +                  * an foreign key constraint on some of other quals 
> and this join
> +                  * haven't any columns from the outer in the target list.
> +                  * But it is still complex task.
> +                  */
> +                 continue;
> +             }
> 
> as far as I remember, this is the place where it is checked that the SJ 
> list is empty and it is logical, in my opinion, that no transformations 
> should be performed if no elements are found for them.
You forget we have "Degenerate" case, as Alexander mentioned above. What 
if you have something like that:
SELECT ... FROM A a1, A a2 WHERE a1.id=1 AND a2.id=1;
In this case, uniqueness can be achieved by the baserestrictinfo 
"A.id=1", if we have an unique index on this column.

-- 
regards,
Andrey Lepikhov
Postgres Professional