Re: Allowing join removals for more join types - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From David Rowley
Subject Re: Allowing join removals for more join types
Date
Msg-id CAHoyFK-JNKnWNs9FFuBOoX9joOxBx2uPKbwW3mEeuaei-Pa08g@mail.gmail.com
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: Allowing join removals for more join types  (Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>)
Responses Re: Allowing join removals for more join types  (Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>)
List pgsql-hackers
On 6 July 2014 03:20, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
David Rowley <dgrowleyml@gmail.com> writes:
> Attached is a delta patch between version 1.2 and 1.3, and also a
> completely updated patch.

Just to note that I've started looking at this, and I've detected a rather
significant omission: there's no check that the join operator has anything
to do with the subquery's grouping operator.  I think we need to verify
that they are members of the same opclass, as
relation_has_unique_index_for does.


hmm, good point. If I understand this correctly we can just ensure that the same operator is used for both the grouping and the join condition.

I've attached a small delta patch which fixes this, and also attached the full updated patch.

Regards

David Rowley
Attachment

pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Andrew Gierth
Date:
Subject: Performance regression: 9.2+ vs. ScalarArrayOpExpr vs. ORDER BY
Next
From: Thomas Munro
Date:
Subject: Re: DISTINCT with btree skip scan