Hi Yuya,
On Fri, Aug 25, 2023 at 1:09 PM Yuya Watari <watari.yuya@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> 3. Future works
>
> 3.1. Redundant memory allocation of Lists
>
> When we need child EquivalenceMembers in a loop over ec_members, v20
> adds them to the list. However, since we cannot modify the ec_members,
> v20 always copies it. In most cases, there are only one or two child
> members, so this behavior is a waste of memory and time and not a good
> idea. I didn't address this problem in v20 because doing so could add
> much complexity to the code, but it is one of the major future works.
>
> I suspect that the degradation of Queries A and B is due to this
> problem. The difference between 'make installcheck' and Queries A and
> B is whether there are partitioned tables. Most of the tests in 'make
> installcheck' do not have partitions, so find_relids_top_parents()
> could immediately determine the given Relids are already top-level and
> keep degradation very small. However, since Queries A and B have
> partitions, too frequent allocations of Lists may have caused the
> regression. I hope we can reduce the degradation by avoiding these
> memory allocations. I will continue to investigate and fix this
> problem.
>
> 3.2. em_relids and pull_varnos
>
> I'm sorry that v20 did not address your 1st concern regarding
> em_relids and pull_varnos. I will try to look into this.
>
> 3.3. Indexes for RestrictInfos
>
> Indexes for RestrictInfos are still in RangeTblEntry in v20-0002. I
> will also investigate this issue.
>
> 3.4. Correctness
>
> v20 has passed all regression tests in my environment, but I'm not so
> sure if v20 is correct.
>
> 4. Conclusion
>
> I wrote v20 based on a new idea. It may have a lot of problems, but it
> has advantages. At least it solves your 3rd concern. Since we iterate
> Lists instead of Bitmapsets, we don't have to introduce an iterator
> mechanism. My experiment showed that the 'make installcheck'
> degradation was very small. For the 2nd concern, v20 no longer adds
> child EquivalenceMembers to ec_members. I'm sorry if this is not what
> you intended, but it effectively worked. Again, v20 is a new proof of
> concept. I hope the v20-based approach will be a good alternative
> solution if we can overcome several problems, including what I
> mentioned above.
It seems that you are still investigating and fixing issues. But the
CF entry is marked as "needs review". I think a better status is
"WoA". Do you agree with that?
--
Best Wishes,
Ashutosh Bapat