Re: An inefficient query caused by unnecessary PlaceHolderVar - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Richard Guo
Subject Re: An inefficient query caused by unnecessary PlaceHolderVar
Date
Msg-id CAMbWs4_57gPq5N5Eo2AsUURaj9ZZWwMeQ2Qdpq0wOBFk71b=ug@mail.gmail.com
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: An inefficient query caused by unnecessary PlaceHolderVar  (James Coleman <jtc331@gmail.com>)
Responses Re: An inefficient query caused by unnecessary PlaceHolderVar
List pgsql-hackers

On Wed, May 31, 2023 at 1:27 AM James Coleman <jtc331@gmail.com> wrote:
This looks good to me.

Thanks for the review!
 
A few small tweaks suggested to comment wording:

+-- lateral reference for simple Var can escape PlaceHolderVar if the
+-- referenced rel is under the same lowest nulling outer join
+explain (verbose, costs off)

I think this is clearer: "lateral references to simple Vars do not
need a PlaceHolderVar when the referenced rel is part of the same
lowest nulling outer join"?

Thanks for the suggestion!  How about we go with "lateral references to
simple Vars do not need a PlaceHolderVar when the referenced rel is
under the same lowest nulling outer join"?  This seems a little more
consistent with the comment in prepjointree.c.
 
                  * lateral references to something outside the subquery being
-                 * pulled up.  (Even then, we could omit the PlaceHolderVar if
-                 * the referenced rel is under the same lowest outer join, but
-                 * it doesn't seem worth the trouble to check that.)
+                 * pulled up.  Even then, we could omit the PlaceHolderVar if
+                 * the referenced rel is under the same lowest nulling outer
+                 * join.

I think this is clearer: "references something outside the subquery
being pulled up and is not under the same lowest outer join."

Agreed.  Will use this one.
 
One other thing: it would be helpful to have the test query output be
stable between HEAD and this patch; perhaps add:

order by 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7

to ensure stability?

Thanks for the suggestion!  I wondered about that too but I'm a bit
confused about whether we should add ORDER BY in test case.  I checked
'sql/join.sql' and found that some queries are using ORDER BY but some
are not.  Not sure what the criteria are.

Thanks
Richard

pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: "Yu Shi (Fujitsu)"
Date:
Subject: RE: Support logical replication of DDLs
Next
From: "Joel Jacobson"
Date:
Subject: Re: Do we want a hashset type?