Re: POC, WIP: OR-clause support for indexes - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Alexander Korotkov
Subject Re: POC, WIP: OR-clause support for indexes
Date
Msg-id CAPpHfdv9GrXfCOdPsMszBrORig+nW2+JBuMD-np_keVuKJ7bdQ@mail.gmail.com
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: POC, WIP: OR-clause support for indexes  (Alexander Korotkov <aekorotkov@gmail.com>)
Responses Re: POC, WIP: OR-clause support for indexes
List pgsql-hackers
On Mon, Jul 29, 2024 at 5:36 AM Alexander Korotkov <aekorotkov@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Sun, Jul 28, 2024 at 12:59 PM Alena Rybakina
> > Because of these reasons, I tried to save this and that transformation
> > together for each column and try to analyze for each expr separately
> > which method would be optimal.
>
> Yes, with v27 of the patch, optimization wouldn't work in these cases.
> However, you are using quite small table.  If you will use larger
> table or disable sequential scans, there would be bitmap plans to
> handle these queries.  So, v27 doesn't make the situation worse. It
> just doesn't optimize all that it could potentially optimize and
> that's OK.
>
> I've written a separate 0002 patch to address this.  Now, before
> generation of paths for bitmap OR, similar OR entries are grouped
> together.  When considering a group of similar entries, they are
> considered both together and one-by-one.  Ideally we could consider
> more sophisticated grouping, but that seems fine for now.  You can
> check how this patch handles the cases of above.
>
> Also, 0002 address issue of duplicated bitmap scan conditions in
> different forms. During generate_bitmap_or_paths() we need to exclude
> considered condition for other clauses.  It couldn't be as normal
> filtered out in the latter stage, because could reach the index in
> another form.
>
> > I agree with you that there is an overhead and your patch fixes this
> > problem, but optimizer needs to have a good ordering of expressions for
> > application.
> >
> > I think we can try to move the transformation to another place where
> > there is already a loop pass, and also save two options "OR" expr and
> > "ANY" expr in one place (through BoolExpr) (like find_duplicate_ors
> > function) and teach the optimizer to determine which option is better,
> > for example, like now in match_orclause_to_indexcol() function.
> >
> > What do you thing about it?
>
> find_duplicate_ors() and similar places were already tried before.
> Please, check upthread.  This approach receives severe critics. AFAIU,
> the problem is that find_duplicate_ors() during preprocessing, a
> cost-blind stage.
>
> This is why I'd like to continue developing ideas of v27, because it
> fits the existing framework.

The revised patchset is attached.  There is no material changes in the
logic, I found no issues here yet.  But it comes with refactoring,
cleanup, more comments and better commit messages.  I think now this
patchset is understandable and ready for review.

------
Regards,
Alexander Korotkov
Supabase

Attachment

pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Tom Lane
Date:
Subject: Re: BlastRADIUS mitigation
Next
From: Sami Imseih
Date:
Subject: Re: Restart pg_usleep when interrupted