Re: Index Skip Scan

> >On Tue, Mar 10, 2020 at 09:29:32AM +1300, David Rowley wrote:
> On Tue, 10 Mar 2020 at 08:56, Dmitry Dolgov <9erthalion6(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> > Assuming we'll implement it in a way that we do not know about what kind
> > of path type is that in create_distinct_path, then it can also work for
> > ProjectionPath or anything else (if UniqueKeys are present). But then
> > still EquivalenceMember are used only to figure out correct
> > distinctPrefixKeys and do not affect whether or not skipping is applied.
> > What do I miss?
>
> I'm not sure I fully understand the question correctly, but let me
> explain further.
>
> In the 0001 patch, standard_qp_callback sets the query_uniquekeys
> depending on the DISTINCT / GROUP BY clause. When building index
> paths in build_index_paths(), the 0002 patch should be looking at the
> root->query_uniquekeys to see if it can build any index paths that
> suit those keys. Such paths should be tagged with the uniquekeys they
> satisfy, basically, exactly the same as how pathkeys work. Many
> create_*_path functions will need to be modified to carry forward
> their uniquekeys. For example, create_projection_path(),
> create_limit_path() don't do anything which would cause the created
> path to violate the unique keys. This way when you get down to
> create_distinct_paths(), paths other than IndexPath may have
> uniquekeys. You'll be able to check which existing paths satisfy the
> unique keys required by the DISTINCT / GROUP BY and select those paths
> instead of having to create any HashAggregate / Unique paths.
>
> Does that answer the question?

Hmm... I'm afraid no, this was already clear. But looks like now I see
that I've misinterpreted one part.

> There's also some weird looking assumptions that an EquivalenceMember
> can only be a Var in create_distinct_paths(). I think you're only
> saved from crashing there because a ProjectionPath will be created
> atop of the IndexPath to evaluate expressions, in which case you're
> not seeing the IndexPath. This results in the optimisation not
> working in cases like:

I've read it as "an assumption that an EquivalenceMember can only be a
Var" results in "the optimisation not working in cases like this". But
you've meant that ignoring a ProjectionPath with an IndexPath inside
results in this optimisation not working, right? If so, then everything
is clear, and my apologies, maybe I need to finally fix my sleep
schedule :)