Re: POC, WIP: OR-clause support for indexes
От | Andrei Lepikhov |
---|---|
Тема | Re: POC, WIP: OR-clause support for indexes |
Дата | |
Msg-id | 90c60eef-c458-4d98-9e05-811f55d202eb@postgrespro.ru обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: POC, WIP: OR-clause support for indexes (Alexander Korotkov <aekorotkov@gmail.com>) |
Список | pgsql-hackers |
On 1/3/2024 22:33, Alexander Korotkov wrote: > I'm going to review and revise the patch. Nice! > > One question I have yet. > > > /* > > * Transformation only works with both side type is not > > * { array | composite | domain | record }. > > Why do we limit transformation for these types? Also, it doesn't seem > the current code restricts anything except composite/record. Answer can be a bit long. Let's try to see comment a4424c5 at first. We forbid record types although they can have typarray. It is because of the RowExpr comparison specific. Although we have the record_eq() routine, all base types in comparing records must be strictly the same. Let me show: explain analyze SELECT * FROM (SELECT ROW(relpages,relnatts) AS x FROM pg_class LIMIT 10) AS q1, (SELECT ROW(relpages,relallvisible) AS x FROM pg_class LIMIT 10) AS q2 WHERE q1.x=q2.x; ERROR: cannot compare dissimilar column types smallint and integer at record column 2 As you can see, we have smallint and integer in the second position of RowExpr and it causes the ERROR. It is the reason, why PostgreSQL transforms ROW expressions to the series of ORs, Look: explain (costs off) SELECT oid,relname FROM pg_class WHERE (oid,relname) IN ((1, 'a'), (2,'b')); Bitmap Heap Scan on pg_class Recheck Cond: ((relname = 'a'::name) OR (relname = 'b'::name)) Filter: (((oid = '1'::oid) AND (relname = 'a'::name)) OR ((oid = '2'::oid) AND (relname = 'b'::name))) -> BitmapOr ... So, transforming composite types to the ScalarArrayOpExpr expression doesn't make sense. Am I wrong? The same with domain. If it have composite base type we reject the transformation according to the logic above. What about arrays? As I see, arrays don't have typarray and we can avoid to spend more cycles after detection of TYPCATEGORY_ARRAY. I haven't done it yet because have a second thought: what if to combine arrays into the larger one? I'm unsure on that, so we can forbid it too. -- regards, Andrei Lepikhov Postgres Professional
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: