From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
---|---|
To: | Peifeng Qiu <pgsql(at)qiupf(dot)dev> |
Cc: | "David G(dot) Johnston" <david(dot)g(dot)johnston(at)gmail(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: Optimize common expressions in projection evaluation |
Date: | 2022-12-05 04:27:57 |
Message-ID: | 3101062.1670214477@sss.pgh.pa.us |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Peifeng Qiu <pgsql(at)qiupf(dot)dev> writes:
>> the need for this code seems not that great. But as to the code itself I'm unable to properly judge.
> A simplified version of my use case is like this:
> CREATE FOREIGN TABLE ft(rawdata json);
> INSERT INTO tbl SELECT (convert_func(rawdata)).* FROM ft;
It might be worth noting that the code as we got it from Berkeley
could do this scenario without multiple evaluations of convert_func().
Memory is foggy, but I believe it involved essentially a two-level
targetlist. Unfortunately, the scheme was impossibly baroque and
buggy, so we eventually ripped it out altogether in favor of the
multiple-evaluation behavior you see today. I think that commit
62e29fe2e might have been what ripped it out, but I'm not quite
sure. It's about the right time-frame, anyway.
I mention this because trying to reverse-engineer this situation
in execExpr seems seriously ugly and inefficient, even assuming
you can make it non-buggy. The right solution has to involve never
expanding foo().* into duplicate function calls in the first place,
which is the way it used to be. Maybe if you dug around in those
twenty-year-old changes you could get some inspiration.
I tend to agree with David that LATERAL offers a good-enough
solution in most cases ... but it is annoying that we accept
this syntax and then pessimize it.
regards, tom lane
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | houzj.fnst@fujitsu.com | 2022-12-05 04:29:30 | RE: Perform streaming logical transactions by background workers and parallel apply |
Previous Message | David Rowley | 2022-12-05 04:16:53 | Re: Bug in row_number() optimization |