On Mon, Nov 27, 2023 at 8:08 PM Peter Geoghegan <pg@bowt.ie> wrote:
> Maybe it should be the responsibility of some other phase of query
> processing, invented solely to make life easier for the optimizer, but
> not formally part of query planning per se.
I don't really see why that would be useful. Adding more stages to the
query pipeline adds cognitive burden for which there must be some
corresponding benefit. Even if this happened very early in query
planning as a completely separate pass over the query tree, that would
minimize the need for code changes outside the optimizer to need to
care about it. But I suspect that this shouldn't happen very early in
query planning as a completely separate pass, but someplace later
where it can be done together with other useful optimizations (e.g.
eval_const_expressions, or even path construction).
> > The right place to do
> > optimization is in the optimizer.
>
> Then why doesn't the optimizer do query rewriting? Isn't that also a
> kind of optimization, at least in part?
I mean, I think rewriting mostly means applying rules.
> ISTM that the real problem is that this is true in the first place. If
> the optimizer had only one representation for any two semantically
> equivalent spellings of the same qual, then it would always use the
> best available representation. That seems even smarter, because that
> way the planner can be dumb and still look fairly smart at runtime.
Sure, well, that's another way of attacking the problem, but the
in-array representation is more convenient to loop over than the
or-clause representation, so if you get to a point where looping over
all the values is a thing you want to do, you're going to want
something that looks like that. If I just care about the fact that the
values I'm looking for are 3, 4, and 6, I want someone to hand me 3,
4, and 6, not x = 3, x = 4, and x = 6, and then I have to skip over
the x = part each time.
--
Robert Haas
EDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
