From: | Alena Rybakina <a(dot)rybakina(at)postgrespro(dot)ru> |
---|---|
To: | David Rowley <dgrowleyml(at)gmail(dot)com> |
Cc: | Andrei Lepikhov <lepihov(at)gmail(dot)com>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: Memoize ANTI and SEMI JOIN inner |
Date: | 2025-03-31 03:21:43 |
Message-ID: | b63acc7a-60bc-4595-81a9-fc6de22e367f@postgrespro.ru |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 31.03.2025 06:04, David Rowley wrote:
> On Mon, 31 Mar 2025 at 15:33, Alena Rybakina<a(dot)rybakina(at)postgrespro(dot)ru> wrote:
>> I believe it's worth asserting that both inner_unique and single_mode are not true at the same time — just as a safety check.
> add_paths_to_joinrel() just chooses not to populate inner_unique for
> SEMI and ANTI joins because, as of today's master, it's pretty
> pointless to determine that because the executor will short-circuit
> and skip to the next outer tuple for those join types anyway. I don't
> follow why having both these flags set would cause trouble. It seems
> perfectly legitimate that add_paths_to_joinrel() could choose to set
> the inner_unique flag for these join types, and if it did, the Assert
> you're proposing would fail for no good reason.
>
I tend to agree with you that someone might set this flag to true for
these join types in the future.
However, is it necessary to check that extra->inner_unique must be false
for SEMI/ANTI joins here, or am I missing something? It looks a little
confusing at this point.
if(!extra->inner_unique&& (jointype== JOIN_SEMI|| jointype== JOIN_ANTI))
single_mode= true;
--
Regards,
Alena Rybakina
Postgres Professional
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | David Rowley | 2025-03-31 03:33:03 | Re: Memoize ANTI and SEMI JOIN inner |
Previous Message | vignesh C | 2025-03-31 03:04:32 | Re: Commit fest 2025-03 |