From: | Dilip Kumar <dilipbalaut(at)gmail(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Thomas Munro <thomas(dot)munro(at)enterprisedb(dot)com> |
Cc: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, Pg Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: <> join selectivity estimate question |
Date: | 2017-05-31 17:18:54 |
Message-ID: | CAFiTN-uLYwPAeEnm3-jbJ4dunKuQtjE5n=Wf_8b+OJ-i1BjMbA@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Fri, Mar 17, 2017 at 6:49 PM, Thomas Munro
<thomas(dot)munro(at)enterprisedb(dot)com> wrote:
> Right. If I temporarily hack neqjoinsel() thus:
>
> result = 1.0 - result;
> +
> + if (jointype == JOIN_SEMI)
> + result = 1.0;
> +
> PG_RETURN_FLOAT8(result);
> }
I was looking into this problem. IMHO, the correct solution will be
that for JOIN_SEMI, neqjoinsel should not estimate the equijoin
selectivity using eqjoinsel_semi, instead, it should calculate the
equijoin selectivity as inner join and it should get the selectivity
of <> by (1-equijoin selectivity). Because for the inner_join we can
claim that "selectivity of '=' + selectivity of '<>' = 1", but same is
not true for the semi-join selectivity. For semi-join it is possible
that selectivity of '=' and '<>' is both are 1.
something like below
----------------------------
@@ -2659,7 +2659,13 @@ neqjoinsel(PG_FUNCTION_ARGS)
SpecialJoinInfo *sjinfo = (SpecialJoinInfo *) PG_GETARG_POINTER(4);
Oid eqop;
float8 result;
+ if (jointype = JOIN_SEMI)
+ {
+ sjinfo->jointype = JOIN_INNER;
+ }
/*
* We want 1 - eqjoinsel() where the equality operator is the one
* associated with this != operator, that is, its negator.
We may need something similar for anti-join as well.
--
Regards,
Dilip Kumar
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Dilip Kumar | 2017-05-31 17:27:28 | Re: POC: Sharing record typmods between backends |
Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2017-05-31 17:13:21 | Re: TAP backpatching policy |