On 07/01/23 09:58, David Rowley wrote:
>
> The attached patch has no tests added. It's going to need some of
> those.
While writing test cases, I found that optimization do not happen for
case #1
(which is prime candidate for such operation) like
EXPLAIN (COSTS OFF)
SELECT empno,
depname,
min(salary) OVER (PARTITION BY depname ORDER BY empno) depminsalary,
sum(salary) OVER (PARTITION BY depname) depsalary
FROM empsalary
ORDER BY depname, empno, enroll_date
This happens because mutual exclusiveness of two operands (when number
of window functions > 1) viz
is_sorted and last activeWindow in the condition:
( !is_sorted && lnext(activeWindows, l) == NULL)
For 2nd last window function, is_sorted is false and path keys get added.
In next run (for last window function), is_sorted becomes true and whole
optimization
part is skipped.
Note: Major issue that if I remove is_sorted from condition, even though
path keys are added, it still do not perform optimization and works same
as in master/unoptimized case.
Perhaps adding path keys at last window function is not doing trick?
Maybe we need to add pathkeys
to all window functions which are subset of query's order by
irrespective of being last or not?
Case #2:
For presorted columns, eg
CREATE INDEX depname_idx ON empsalary(depname);
SET enable_seqscan=0;
EXPLAIN (COSTS OFF)
SELECT empno,
min(salary) OVER (PARTITION BY depname) depminsalary
FROM empsalary
ORDER BY depname, empno;
Is this correct plan:
a)
QUERY PLAN
-------------------------------------------------------
Incremental Sort
Sort Key: depname, empno
Presorted Key: depname
-> WindowAgg
-> Index Scan using depname_idx on empsalary
(5 rows)
or this:
b) (Akin to Optimized version)
QUERY PLAN
-------------------------------------------------------
WindowAgg
-> Incremental Sort
Sort Key: depname, empno
Presorted Key: depname
-> Index Scan using depname_idx on empsalary
(5 rows)
Patched version does (a) because of is_sorted condition.
If we remove both is_sorted and lnext(activeWindows, l) == NULL conditions,
we get correct results in these two cases.
--
Regards,
Ankit Kumar Pandey
