On Fri, Jul 21, 2017 at 4:10 AM, Thomas Munro
<thomas.munro@enterprisedb.com> wrote:
>
> Thanks. Bearing all that in mind, I ran through a series of test
> scenarios and discovered that my handling for JOIN_ANTI was wrong: I
> thought that I had to deal with inverting the result, but I now see
> that that's handled elsewhere (calc_joinrel_size_estimate() I think).
> So neqjoinsel should just treat JOIN_SEMI and JOIN_ANTI exactly the
> same way.
I agree, esp. after looking at eqjoinsel_semi(), which is used for
both semi and anti joins, it becomes more clear.
>
> That just leaves the question of whether we should try to handle the
> empty RHS and single-value RHS cases using statistics. My intuition
> is that we shouldn't, but I'll be happy to change my intuition and
> code that up if that is the feedback from planner gurus.
Empty RHS can result from dummy relations also, which are produced by
constraint exclusion, so may be that's an interesting case. Single
value RHS may be interesting with partitioned table with all rows in a
given partition end up with the same partition key value. But may be
those are just different patches. I am not sure.
>
> Please find attached a new version, and a test script I used, which
> shows a bunch of interesting cases. I'll add this to the commitfest.
I added some "stable" tests to your patch taking inspiration from the
test SQL file. I think those will be stable across machines and runs.
Please let me know if those look good to you.
--
Best Wishes,
Ashutosh Bapat
EnterpriseDB Corporation
The Postgres Database Company
--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
