Re: Removing Functionally Dependent GROUP BY Columns

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: David Rowley <david(dot)rowley(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>
Cc: Julien Rouhaud <julien(dot)rouhaud(at)dalibo(dot)com>, Marko Tiikkaja <marko(at)joh(dot)to>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: Removing Functionally Dependent GROUP BY Columns
Date: 2016-01-23 19:20:42
Message-ID: 895.1453576842@sss.pgh.pa.us
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

David Rowley <david(dot)rowley(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> writes:
> On 23 January 2016 at 12:44, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
>> * What you did to join.sql/join.out seems a bit bizarre. The existing
>> test case that you modified was meant to test something else, and
>> conflating this behavior with the pre-existing one (and not documenting
>> it) is confusing as can be. A bit more work on regression test cases
>> seems indicated.

> The history behind that is that at one point during developing the
> patch that test had started failing due to the group by item being
> removed therefore allowing the join removal conditions to be met. On
> testing again with the old test query I see this no longer happens, so
> I've removed the change, although the expected output still differs
> due to the group by item being removed.

Hmm ... but ... it seems to me that the test as it stands *should* fail
after this patch, because once the non-pkey grouping column is removed
the join removal optimization should apply. I think we should look a bit
more closely at what's happening there.

(IOW, I wasn't so much unhappy with the change to that test case as
that it was being used as the only test case for this new behavior.
I see you added some new, separate test cases, so that's good; but
there's something fishy if the existing case doesn't change behavior.)

regards, tom lane

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Peter Eisentraut 2016-01-23 19:53:47 Re: Proposal: Trigonometric functions in degrees
Previous Message Peter Geoghegan 2016-01-23 19:07:00 Re: PoC: Partial sort