On Wed, Nov 20, 2019 at 12:34:25PM -0800, Xun Cheng wrote:
>On Wed, Nov 20, 2019 at 11:18 AM Tomas Vondra <tomas.vondra@2ndquadrant.com>
>wrote:
>
>> On Wed, Nov 20, 2019 at 12:36:50PM -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
>> >Tomas Vondra <tomas.vondra@2ndquadrant.com> writes:
>> >> On Wed, Nov 20, 2019 at 11:12:56AM -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
>> >>> I'm content to say that the application should have written the query
>> >>> with a GROUP BY to begin with.
>> >
>> >> I'm not sure I agree with that. The problem is this really depends on
>> >> the number of rows that will need the subquery result (i.e. based on
>> >> selectivity of conditions in the outer query). For small number of rows
>> >> it's fine to execute the subplan repeatedly, for large number of rows
>> >> it's better to rewrite it to the GROUP BY form. It's hard to make those
>> >> judgements in the application, I think.
>> >
>> >Hm. That actually raises the stakes a great deal, because if that's
>> >what you're expecting, it would require planning out both the transformed
>> >and untransformed versions of the query before you could make a cost
>> >comparison. That's a *lot* harder to do in the context of our
>> >optimizer's structure, and it also means that the feature would consume
>> >even more planner cycles, than what I was envisioning (namely, a fixed
>> >jointree-prep-stage transformation similar to subquery pullup).
>> >
>> >I have no idea whether Greenplum really does it like that.
>> >
>>
>> True. I'm not really sure how exactly would the planning logic work or
>> how Greenplum does it. It might be the case that based on the use cases
>> they target they simply assume the rewritten query is the right one in
>> 99% of the cases, so they do the transformation always. Not sure.
>>
>>
>The Greenplum page mentions they also added "join-aggregates reordering",
>in addition to subquery unnesting.
>Costing pushing joins below aggregates could probably help.
>It does increase plan search space quite a bit.
>
We actually do have a patch for aggregate push-down [1]. But I don't
think it's directly relevant to this thread - the main trick here is
transforming the correlated subquery to aggregation, not moving the
aggregation down. That seems like a separate optimization.
[1] https://commitfest.postgresql.org/25/1247/
--
Tomas Vondra http://www.2ndQuadrant.com
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services
