From: | Alena Rybakina <a(dot)rybakina(at)postgrespro(dot)ru> |
---|---|
To: | Alexander Korotkov <aekorotkov(at)gmail(dot)com> |
Cc: | Ranier Vilela <ranier(dot)vf(at)gmail(dot)com>, Alexander Lakhin <exclusion(at)gmail(dot)com>, jian he <jian(dot)universality(at)gmail(dot)com>, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, Nikolay Shaplov <dhyan(at)nataraj(dot)su>, pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org, Peter Geoghegan <pg(at)bowt(dot)ie>, Marcos Pegoraro <marcos(at)f10(dot)com(dot)br>, teodor(at)sigaev(dot)ru, Peter Eisentraut <peter(at)eisentraut(dot)org>, Andrei Lepikhov <lepihov(at)gmail(dot)com> |
Subject: | Re: POC, WIP: OR-clause support for indexes |
Date: | 2025-01-31 14:31:44 |
Message-ID: | e40494ad-cad8-43e6-8372-d0c7b3411ad7@postgrespro.ru |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Hi!
On 25.01.2025 08:04, Alexander Korotkov wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 15, 2025 at 10:24 AM Andrei Lepikhov<lepihov(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
>> On 1/13/25 10:39, Andrei Lepikhov wrote:
>>> On 1/13/25 01:39, Alexander Korotkov wrote:
>>> It can be resolved with a single-line change (see attached). But I need
>>> some time to ponder over the changing behaviour when a clause may match
>>> an index and be in joinorclauses.
>> In addition, let me raise a couple of issues:
>> 1. As Robert has said before, it may interfere with some short-circuit
>> optimisations like below:
>>
>> EXPLAIN (COSTS OFF)
>> SELECT * FROM bitmap_split_or t1
>> WHERE t1.a=2 AND (t1.b=2 OR t1.b = (
>> SELECT sum(c1.reltuples) FROM pg_class c1, pg_class c2
>> WHERE c1.relpages=c2.relpages AND c1.relpages = t1.a));
>>
>> Here, a user may avoid evaluating the subplan at all if t1.b=2 all the
>> time when t1.a=2. OR->ANY may accidentally shift this behaviour.
>>
>> 2. The query:
>>
>> EXPLAIN (ANALYZE, COSTS OFF)
>> SELECT * FROM bitmap_split_or t1
>> WHERE t1.a=2 OR t1.a = (
>> SELECT sum(c1.reltuples) FROM pg_class c1, pg_class c2
>> WHERE c1.relpages=c2.relpages AND c1.relpages = t1.a)::integer;
>>
>> causes SEGFAULT during index keys evaluation. I haven't dived into it
>> yet, but it seems quite a typical misstep and is not difficult to fix.
> Segfault appears to be caused by a typo. Patch used parent rinfo
> instead of child rinfo. Fixed in the attached patch.
>
> It appears that your first query also changed a plan after fixing
> this. Could you, please, provide another example of a regression for
> short-circuit optimization, which is related to this patch?
>
> Also, I've integrated your fix from [1].
>
> Links.
> 1.https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/41ba3d47-2a48-476c-88d4-6ebd889a7af2%40gmail.com
I started reviewing at the patch and saw some output "ERROR" in the
output of the test and is it okay here?
SELECT * FROM tenk1 t1
WHERE t1.thousand= 42OR t1.thousand= (SELECT t2.tenthousFROM tenk1 t2
WHERE t2.thousand= t1.tenthous);
ERROR: more than one row returned by a subquery used as an expression
--
Regards,
Alena Rybakina
Postgres Professional
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Jean-Christophe Arnu | 2025-01-31 14:33:08 | Re: FileFallocate misbehaving on XFS |
Previous Message | Álvaro Herrera | 2025-01-31 14:25:18 | Re: hash_search_with_hash_value is high in "perf top" on a replica |