From: | Andrey Lepikhov <a(dot)lepikhov(at)postgrespro(dot)ru> |
---|---|
To: | Andy Fan <zhihui(dot)fan1213(at)gmail(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: A new strategy for pull-up correlated ANY_SUBLINK |
Date: | 2022-11-02 03:42:28 |
Message-ID: | 1bca28ab-e962-b68a-80c1-988b34eb6195@postgrespro.ru |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 2/11/2022 09:02, Andy Fan wrote:
> In the past we pull-up the ANY-sublink with 2 steps, the first step is to
> pull up the sublink as a subquery, and the next step is to pull up the
> subquery if it is allowed. The benefits of this method are obvious,
> pulling up the subquery has more requirements, even if we can just finish
> the first step, we still get huge benefits. However the bad stuff happens
> if varlevelsup = 1 involves, things fail at step 1.
>
> convert_ANY_sublink_to_join ...
>
> if (contain_vars_of_level((Node *) subselect, 1))
> return NULL;
>
> In this patch we distinguish the above case and try to pull-up it within
> one step if it is helpful, It looks to me that what we need to do is just
> transform it to EXIST-SUBLINK.
Maybe code [1] would be useful for your purposes/tests.
We implemented flattening of correlated subqueries for simple N-J case,
but found out that in some cases the flattening isn't obvious the best
solution - we haven't info about cardinality/cost estimations and can do
worse.
I guess, for more complex flattening procedure (with aggregate function
in a targetlist of correlated subquery) situation can be even worse.
Maybe your idea has such corner cases too ?
--
regards,
Andrey Lepikhov
Postgres Professional
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Dilip Kumar | 2022-11-02 03:52:32 | Re: Code checks for App Devs, using new options for transaction behavior |
Previous Message | Andy Fan | 2022-11-02 03:02:58 | A new strategy for pull-up correlated ANY_SUBLINK |