pg.ddx.io pgsql-sql@postgresql.org mailing list archive help / color / mirror / Atom feed From: Ehab Galal <ehabgalal123@hotmail.com>
To: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Cc: pgsql-sql@postgresql.org <pgsql-sql@postgresql.org>
Subject: Re: omitting redundant join predicate
Date: Mon, 5 Nov 2007 10:15:36 -0500
Message-ID: <BAY138-W453548E0FFC1D11A00D2AD96880@phx.gbl> (raw )
In-Reply-To: <14450.1194194136@sss.pgh.pa.us >
References: <BAY138-W43A1A93DB7B84F57B84211968F0@phx.gbl >
<14450.1194194136@sss.pgh.pa.us >
Sorry for not being clear enough. What i meant is how aware the optimizer is about the transitivity of operators.
I agree that the more join clauses a query gets, the more flexibility the optimizer gets to pick an optimal plan.
what i expected is that the optimizer will use the redundant predicates
to create the plan, but the execution plan itself will not execute a
redundant predicate.
O! I see, it's my mistake. The example i mentioned was not a good example. I tried the equality and it is working well :)
Nested Loop (cost=0.00..3.14 rows=1 width=368)
Join Filter: ("outer".username = "inner".username)
-> Nested Loop (cost=0.00..2.10 rows=1 width=218)
Join Filter: ("outer".username = "inner".username)
-> Seq Scan on t1 (cost=0.00..1.01 rows=1 width=146)
-> Seq Scan on t3 (cost=0.00..1.04 rows=4 width=72)
-> Seq Scan on t2 (cost=0.00..1.02 rows=2 width=150)
I am using postgresql 8.5.1, I am wondering is there is any patch that
i can run to enable it to put the actual table names instead of
inner/outer. Should i post this to the hackers mailing list?
Thanks a lot.
> To: ehabgalal123@hotmail.com
> CC: pgsql-sql@postgresql.org
> Subject: Re: [SQL] omitting redundant join predicate
> Date: Sun, 4 Nov 2007 11:35:36 -0500
> From: tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us
>
> Ehab Galal <ehabgalal123@hotmail.com> writes:
> > explain select *
> > from t1, t2, t3
> > where t1.f <= t2.f
> > and t2.f <= t3.f
> > and t1.f <= t3.f;
>
> > I was wondering if there is a
> > way to omit the redundant join predicate.
>
> You're not being very clear here. Do you mean will you get the same
> answer if you omit "t1.f <= t3.f"? Yes, of course (ignoring possibly
> different output ordering). Do you mean you think the system should
> discard it as redundant? I disagree --- the more join clauses the
> better, as a rule. Do you mean that the EXPLAIN output looks like
> the same comparison is being applied twice? It isn't --- in a more
> modern PG release the output looks like this:
>
> QUERY PLAN
> ------------------------------------------------------------------
> Nested Loop (cost=33.54..81794021.44 rows=362975624 width=12)
> Join Filter: ((t1.f <= t2.f) AND (t2.f <= t3.f))
> -> Nested Loop (cost=0.00..124472.40 rows=1526533 width=8)
> Join Filter: (t1.f <= t3.f)
> -> Seq Scan on t1 (cost=0.00..31.40 rows=2140 width=4)
> -> Seq Scan on t3 (cost=0.00..31.40 rows=2140 width=4)
> -> Materialize (cost=33.54..54.94 rows=2140 width=4)
> -> Seq Scan on t2 (cost=0.00..31.40 rows=2140 width=4)
> (8 rows)
>
> This is of course the stupidest possible join plan, but it's hard to do
> much better --- both hash and merge joins work only on equality
> conditions. You can do a bit better with an index on t2.f:
>
> QUERY PLAN
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> Nested Loop (cost=0.00..13222230.60 rows=362975624 width=12)
> -> Nested Loop (cost=0.00..124472.40 rows=1526533 width=8)
> Join Filter: (t1.f <= t3.f)
> -> Seq Scan on t1 (cost=0.00..31.40 rows=2140 width=4)
> -> Seq Scan on t3 (cost=0.00..31.40 rows=2140 width=4)
> -> Index Scan using t2i on t2 (cost=0.00..5.01 rows=238 width=4)
> Index Cond: ((t1.f <= t2.f) AND (t2.f <= t3.f))
> (7 rows)
>
> regards, tom lane
_________________________________________________________________
Help yourself to FREE treats served up daily at the Messenger Café. Stop by today.
http://www.cafemessenger.com/info/info_sweetstuff2.html?ocid=TXT_TAGLM_OctWLtagline=
view thread (4+ messages) latest in thread
Message-ID: <BAY138-W453548E0FFC1D11A00D2AD96880@phx.gbl>
Permalink: ../BAY138-W453548E0FFC1D11A00D2AD96880@phx.gbl/
Also on: postgresql.org/message-id/BAY138-W453548E0FFC1D11A00D2AD96880@phx.gbl
copy link · copy postgr.es
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: pgsql-sql@postgresql.org
Cc: ehabgalal123@hotmail.com, tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us
Subject: Re: omitting redundant join predicate
In-Reply-To: <BAY138-W453548E0FFC1D11A00D2AD96880@phx.gbl>
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
This inbox is served by DDX for PostgreSQL; see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox