| From: | Andrei Lepikhov <lepihov(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Peter Geoghegan <pg(at)bowt(dot)ie> |
| Cc: | Alexander Korotkov <aekorotkov(at)gmail(dot)com>, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Alena Rybakina <a(dot)rybakina(at)postgrespro(dot)ru>, jian he <jian(dot)universality(at)gmail(dot)com>, Nikolay Shaplov <dhyan(at)nataraj(dot)su>, pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org, Marcos Pegoraro <marcos(at)f10(dot)com(dot)br>, teodor(at)sigaev(dot)ru, Peter Eisentraut <peter(at)eisentraut(dot)org>, Ranier Vilela <ranier(dot)vf(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Subject: | Re: POC, WIP: OR-clause support for indexes |
| Date: | 2024-10-09 03:54:54 |
| Message-ID: | 1921fa8f-b8fe-49f4-8bc1-e0fada75a3af@gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 10/4/24 22:00, Peter Geoghegan wrote:
> I don't think that removing duplicated constants is all that
> important, since we already do that during execution proper. The
> nbtree code does this in _bt_preprocess_array_keys. It even does
> things like merge together a pair of duplicate SAOPs against the same
> column. It doesn't matter if the arrays are of different types,
> either.Hmm, my intention is a bit different - removing duplicates allows us to
estimate selectivity more precisely, right? Maybe it is not enough to be
a core feature, but I continue to think about auto-generated queries and
extensions that can help generate proper plans for queries from AI,
ORM, etc. users.
--
regards, Andrei Lepikhov
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tatsuo Ishii | 2024-10-09 03:58:22 | Re: Set AUTOCOMMIT to on in script output by pg_dump |
| Previous Message | David G. Johnston | 2024-10-09 03:53:15 | Re: Set AUTOCOMMIT to on in script output by pg_dump |