Re: POC, WIP: OR-clause support for indexes

On 4/3/2024 09:26, jian he wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 29, 2024 at 4:59 PM Andrei Lepikhov
>> Feel free to add, change or totally rewrite these changes.
On replacement of static ScalarArrayOpExpr dest with dynamic allocated one:
After discussion [1] I agree with that replacement.

Some style (and language) changes in comments I haven't applied because
it looks debatable for me.

> I think it should be something like:
> + gettext_noop("Transform a sequence of OR expressions to an array
> expression."),
> + gettext_noop("The planner will replace expression like 'x=c1 OR x=c2 "
> + "to the expression 'x = ANY( ARRAY[c1,c2])''"
Fixed

> queryId may not be a good variable name here?
Not sure. QueryId is a concept, part of queryjumble technique and can be
used by other tools. It just tells the developer what it is the same
thing as Query Jumbling but for a separate expression.
At least you don't insist on removing of JumbleState return pointer that
looks strange for a simple hash ...
>
> comment `/* Compute query ID */`
> seems not correct, here we are just hashing the expression?
The same as above.
> +/*
> + * Dynahash match function to use in guc_hashtab
> the above comments seem not correct?
Yes, fixed.

> ` It applies to equality expressions only.` seems not correct?
> `select * from tenk1 where unique1 < 1 or unique1 < 2; ` can also do
> the transformation.
Yes, I forgot it.
> `similarity of variable sides.` seems not correct,
> should it be 'sameness of the variable sides`?
The term 'equivalence' looks better *).

> in [2], we can get:
> SOME is a synonym for ANY. IN is equivalent to = ANY.
>
> but still transforming OR to ANY is not intuitive.
> a normal user may not know what is "transforming OR to ANY".
> so maybe adding a simple example at
> <varlistentry id="guc-enable-or-transformation"
> xreflabel="enable_or_transformation">
> would be great. which, I did at previous thread.
Not sure. Examples in that section are unusual things. What's more,
should a user who doesn't know what it means to change this setting?
Let's wait for other opinions.

[1] https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/2157387.1709068790@sss.pgh.pa.us

--
regards,
Andrei Lepikhov
Postgres Professional