On Sat, 17 Jul 2021 at 19:32, Andy Fan <zhihui.fan1213@gmail.com> wrote:
> SELECT * FROM t1, t2 WHERE t1.pk = t2.pk;
>
> Then when I populate_baserel_uniquekeys for t1, we already have
> EC{Members={t1.pk, t2.pk}} in root->eq_classes already. Then I use
> this EC directly for t1's UniqueKey. The result is:
>
> T1's UniqueKey : [ EC{Members={t1.pk, t2.pk}} ].
>
> *Would this be OK since at the baserel level, the "t1.pk = t2.pk" is not
> executed yet?*
>
> I tried the below example to test how PathKey is maintained.
> CREATE TABLE t1 (a INT, b INT);
> CREATE TABLE t2 (a INT, b INT);
> CREATE INDEX ON t1(b);
>
> SELECT * FROM t1, t2 WHERE t1.b = t2.b and t1.b > 3;
>
> then we can get t1's Path:
>
> Index Scan on (b), PathKey.pk_class include 2 members (t1.b, t2.b}
> even before the Join.
>
> So looks the answer for my question should be "yes"? Hope I have
> made myself clear.
I don't see the problem. The reason PathKeys use EquivalenceClasses is
so that queries like: SELECT * FROM tab WHERE a=b ORDER BY b; can see
that they're also ordered by a. This is useful because if there
happens to be an index on tab(a) then we can use it to provide the
required ordering for this query.
We'll want the same with UniqueKeys. The same thing there looks like:
CREATE TABLE tab (a int primary key, b int not null);
select distinct b from tab where a=b;
Since we have the EquivalenceClass with {a,b} stored in the UniqueKey,
then we should be able to execute this without doing any distinct
operation.
David
