> On Mon, Jul 22, 2019 at 7:10 PM Jesper Pedersen <jesper.pedersen@redhat.com> wrote:
>
> On 7/22/19 1:44 AM, David Rowley wrote:
> > Here are the comments I noted down during the review:
> >
> > cost_index:
> >
> > I know you've not finished here, but I think it'll need to adjust
> > tuples_fetched somehow to account for estimate_num_groups() on the
> > Path's unique keys. Any Eclass with an ec_has_const = true does not
> > need to be part of the estimate there as there can only be at most one
> > value for these.
> >
> > For example, in a query such as:
> >
> > SELECT x,y FROM t WHERE x = 1 GROUP BY x,y;
> >
> > you only need to perform estimate_num_groups() on "y".
> >
> > I'm really not quite sure on what exactly will be required from
> > amcostestimate() here. The cost of the skip scan is not the same as
> > the normal scan. So other that API needs adjusted to allow the caller
> > to mention that we want skip scans estimated, or there needs to be
> > another callback.
> >
>
> I think this part will become more clear once the index skip scan patch
> is rebased, as we got the uniquekeys field on the Path, and the
> indexskipprefixy info on the IndexPath node.
Here is what I came up with to address the problems, mentioned above in this
thread. It passes tests, but I haven't tested it yet more thoughtful (e.g. it
occurred to me, that `_bt_read_closest` probably wouldn't work, if a next key,
that passes an index condition is few pages away - I'll try to tackle it soon).
Just another small step forward, but I hope it's enough to rebase on top of it
planner changes.
Also I've added few tags, mostly to mention reviewers contribution.
