Re: Removing unneeded self joins - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From David Rowley
Subject Re: Removing unneeded self joins
Date
Msg-id CAKJS1f9UkZgezi0Uj0P+0HhJsZ2KZEPaGL8ch5w8SA3p8GFGQA@mail.gmail.com
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: Removing unneeded self joins  (Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>)
Responses Re: Removing unneeded self joins  (Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>)
List pgsql-hackers
On 17 May 2018 at 10:13, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
> Yeah.  It'd have to be a very heuristic thing that doesn't account
> for much beyond the number of relations in the query, and maybe their
> sizes --- although I don't think we even know the latter at the
> point where join removal would be desirable.  (And note that one of
> the desirable benefits of join removal is not having to find out the
> sizes of removed rels ... so just swapping that around doesn't appeal.)

There's probably some argument for delaying obtaining the relation
size until after join removal and probably partition pruning too, but
it's currently done well before that in build_simple_rel, where the
RelOptInfo is built.


-- 
 David Rowley                   http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
 PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training & Services


pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Alexander Korotkov
Date:
Subject: Re: [BUGFIX] amcanbackward is not checked before building backwardindex paths
Next
From: Dean Rasheed
Date:
Subject: Re: NaNs in numeric_power (was Re: Postgres 11 release notes)