Re: PATCH: add support for IN and @> in functional-dependency statistics use

On Wed, 18 Mar 2020 at 00:29, Tomas Vondra <tomas(dot)vondra(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> wrote:
>
> OK, I took a look. I think from the correctness POV the patch is OK, but
> I think the dependencies_clauselist_selectivity() function now got a bit
> too complex. I've been able to parse it now, but I'm sure I'll have
> trouble in the future :-(
>
> Can we refactor / split it somehow and move bits of the logic to smaller
> functions, or something like that?
>

Yeah, it has gotten a bit long. It's somewhat tricky splitting it up,
because of the number of shared variables used throughout the
function, but here's an updated patch splitting it into what seemed
like the 2 most logical pieces. The first piece (still in
dependencies_clauselist_selectivity()) works out what dependencies
can/should be applied, and the second piece in a new function does the
actual work of applying the list of functional dependencies to the
clause list.

I think that has made it easier to follow, and it has also reduced the
complexity of the final "no applicable stats" branch.

> Another thing I'd like to suggest is keeping the "old" formula, and
> instead of just replacing it with
>
> P(a,b) = f * Min(P(a), P(b)) + (1-f) * P(a) * P(b)
>
> but explaining how the old formula may produce nonsensical selectivity,
> and how the new formula addresses that issue.
>

I think this is purely a comment issue? I've added some more extensive
comments attempting to justify the formulae.

Regards,
Dean