From: | Alexander Korotkov <aekorotkov(at)gmail(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Alena Rybakina <a(dot)rybakina(at)postgrespro(dot)ru> |
Cc: | Andrei Lepikhov <a(dot)lepikhov(at)postgrespro(dot)ru>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org, Peter Geoghegan <pg(at)bowt(dot)ie>, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, "Finnerty, Jim" <jfinnert(at)amazon(dot)com>, Marcos Pegoraro <marcos(at)f10(dot)com(dot)br>, teodor(at)sigaev(dot)ru, Ranier Vilela <ranier(dot)vf(at)gmail(dot)com>, Tomas Vondra <tomas(dot)vondra(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>, Peter Eisentraut <peter(at)eisentraut(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: POC, WIP: OR-clause support for indexes |
Date: | 2023-11-25 01:23:38 |
Message-ID: | CAPpHfdu-_j6=E9CHjSGu0=SidfTqdtj7qk78dCdW-=4RFDHBDw@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Fri, Nov 24, 2023 at 7:05 AM Alena Rybakina
<a(dot)rybakina(at)postgrespro(dot)ru> wrote:
> On 23.11.2023 12:23, Andrei Lepikhov wrote:
> > I think the usage of nodeToString for the generation of clause hash is
> > too expensive and buggy.
> > Also, in the code, you didn't resolve hash collisions. So, I've
> > rewritten the patch a bit (see the attachment).
> > One more thing: I propose to enable transformation by default at least
> > for quick detection of possible issues.
> > This code changes tests in many places. But, as I see it, it mostly
> > demonstrates the positive effect of the transformation.
>
> On 24.11.2023 06:30, Andrei Lepikhov wrote:
>
> > On 23/11/2023 16:23, Andrei Lepikhov wrote:
> >> This code changes tests in many places. But, as I see it, it mostly
> >> demonstrates the positive effect of the transformation.
> >
> > I found out that the postgres_fdw tests were impacted by the feature.
> > Fix it, because the patch is on the commitfest and passes buildfarm.
> > Taking advantage of this, I suppressed the expression evaluation
> > procedure to make regression test changes more clear.
>
> Thank you for your work. You are right, the patch with the current
> changes looks better and works more correctly.
>
> To be honest, I didn't think we could use JumbleExpr in this way.
I think patch certainly gets better in this aspect. One thing I can't
understand is why do we use home-grown code for resolving
hash-collisions. You can just define custom hash and match functions
in HASHCTL. Even if we need to avoid repeated JumbleExpr calls, we
still can save pre-calculated hash value into hash entry and use
custom hash and match. This doesn't imply us to write our own
collision-resolving code.
------
Regards,
Alexander Korotkov
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | vignesh C | 2023-11-25 01:51:04 | Re: pg_upgrade and logical replication |
Previous Message | Michael Paquier | 2023-11-25 01:20:00 | Re: [PATCH] Add CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS in scram_SaltedPassword loop. |