Re: Removing unneeded self joins

On 13.10.2023 12:03, Andrei Lepikhov wrote:
> On 13/10/2023 15:56, a.rybakina wrote:
>>
>>>> Also I've incorporated improvements from Alena Rybakina except one for
>>>> skipping SJ removal when no SJ quals is found.  It's not yet clear for
>>>> me if this check fix some cases. But at least optimization got skipped
>>>> in some useful cases (as you can see in regression tests).
>>>
>>> Agree. I wouldn't say I like it too. But also, I suggest skipping 
>>> some unnecessary assertions proposed in that patch:
>>> Assert(toKeep->relid != -1); - quite strange. Why -1? Why not all 
>>> the negative numbers, at least?
>>> Assert(is_opclause(orinfo->clause)); - above we skip clauses with 
>>> rinfo->mergeopfamilies == NIL. Each mergejoinable clause is already 
>>> checked as is_opclause.
>>> All these changes (see in the attachment) are optional.
>>>
>> I don't mind about asserts, maybe I misunderstood something in the 
>> patch.
>>
>> About skipping SJ removal when no SJ quals is found, I assume it is 
>> about it:
>>
>> split_selfjoin_quals(root, restrictlist, &selfjoinquals,
>>                                    &otherjoinquals, inner->relid, 
>> outer->relid);
>>
>> +            if (list_length(selfjoinquals) == 0)
>> +             {
>> +                 /*
>> +                  * XXX:
>> +                  * we would detect self-join without quals like 
>> 'x==x' if we had
>> +                  * an foreign key constraint on some of other quals 
>> and this join
>> +                  * haven't any columns from the outer in the target 
>> list.
>> +                  * But it is still complex task.
>> +                  */
>> +                 continue;
>> +             }
>>
>> as far as I remember, this is the place where it is checked that the 
>> SJ list is empty and it is logical, in my opinion, that no 
>> transformations should be performed if no elements are found for them.
> You forget we have "Degenerate" case, as Alexander mentioned above. 
> What if you have something like that:
> SELECT ... FROM A a1, A a2 WHERE a1.id=1 AND a2.id=1;
> In this case, uniqueness can be achieved by the baserestrictinfo 
> "A.id=1", if we have an unique index on this column.
>
Yes, sorry, I missed it. thanks again for the explanation 🙂