Re: NOT IN subquery optimization - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Thomas Munro
Subject Re: NOT IN subquery optimization
Date
Msg-id CA+hUKGLr2_xwZsKdd+MxM6Vei7j83wxYrCJQstWAXZU_3jjKHg@mail.gmail.com
Whole thread Raw
In response to NOT IN subquery optimization  ("Li, Zheng" <zhelli@amazon.com>)
Responses Re: NOT IN subquery optimization  (Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@2ndquadrant.com>)
List pgsql-hackers
On Sat, Jun 29, 2019 at 4:19 AM Li, Zheng <zhelli@amazon.com> wrote:>
> Resending patch v2.2, looks like the previous submission did not get attached to the original thread.
>
> This version fixed an issue that involves CTE. Because we call subquery_planner before deciding whether to proceed
withthe transformation, we need to setup access to upper level CTEs at this point if the subquery contains any CTE
RangeTblEntry.
>
> Also added more test cases of NOT IN accessing CTEs, including recursive CTE. It's nice that CTE can use index now!

Hi Zheng, Jim,

With my Commitfest doozer hat on, I have moved this entry to the
September 'fest.  I noticed in passing that it needs to be adjusted
for the new pg_list.h API.  It'd be good to get some feedback from
reviewers on these two competing proposals:

https://commitfest.postgresql.org/24/2020/
https://commitfest.postgresql.org/24/2023/

-- 
Thomas Munro
https://enterprisedb.com



pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Tom Lane
Date:
Subject: Re: Optimze usage of immutable functions as relation
Next
From: Thomas Munro
Date:
Subject: Re: Data-only pg_rewind, take 2