Re: POC, WIP: OR-clause support for indexes - Mailing list pgsql-hackers
From | Alena Rybakina |
---|---|
Subject | Re: POC, WIP: OR-clause support for indexes |
Date | |
Msg-id | a805a3f3-558a-42ef-a6b2-ad0c8af36a64@postgrespro.ru Whole thread Raw |
In response to | POC, WIP: OR-clause support for indexes (Teodor Sigaev <teodor@sigaev.ru>) |
List | pgsql-hackers |
Hi! On 12.01.2025 21:39, Alexander Korotkov wrote: > On Fri, Nov 29, 2024 at 9:54 AM Alexander Korotkov <aekorotkov@gmail.com> wrote: >> On Fri, Nov 29, 2024 at 7:51 AM Alena Rybakina >> <a.rybakina@postgrespro.ru> wrote: >>> On 29.11.2024 03:04, Alexander Korotkov wrote: >>>> On Thu, Nov 28, 2024 at 9:33 PM Alena Rybakina >>>> <a.rybakina@postgrespro.ru> wrote: >>>>> On 28.11.2024 22:28, Ranier Vilela wrote: >>>>> >>>>> Em qui., 28 de nov. de 2024 às 16:03, Alena Rybakina <a.rybakina@postgrespro.ru> escreveu: >>>>>> Hi! Thank you for the case. >>>>>> >>>>>> On 28.11.2024 21:00, Alexander Lakhin wrote: >>>>>>> Hello Alexander, >>>>>>> >>>>>>> 21.11.2024 09:34, Alexander Korotkov wrote: >>>>>>>> I'm going to push this if no objections. >>>>>>> Please look at the following query, which triggers an error after >>>>>>> ae4569161: >>>>>>> SET random_page_cost = 1; >>>>>>> CREATE TABLE tbl(u UUID); >>>>>>> CREATE INDEX idx ON tbl USING HASH (u); >>>>>>> SELECT COUNT(*) FROM tbl WHERE u = '00000000000000000000000000000000' OR >>>>>>> u = '11111111111111111111111111111111'; >>>>>>> >>>>>>> ERROR: XX000: ScalarArrayOpExpr index qual found where not allowed >>>>>>> LOCATION: ExecIndexBuildScanKeys, nodeIndexscan.c:1625 >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>> I found out what the problem is index scan method was not generated. We >>>>>> need to check this during OR clauses for SAOP transformation. >>>>>> >>>>>> There is a patch to fix this problem. >>>>> Hi. >>>>> Thanks for the quick fix. >>>>> >>>>> But I wonder if it is not possible to avoid all if the index is useless? >>>>> Maybe moving your fix to the beginning of the function? >>>>> >>>>> diff --git a/src/backend/optimizer/path/indxpath.c b/src/backend/optimizer/path/indxpath.c >>>>> index d827fc9f4d..5ea0b27d01 100644 >>>>> --- a/src/backend/optimizer/path/indxpath.c >>>>> +++ b/src/backend/optimizer/path/indxpath.c >>>>> @@ -3248,6 +3248,10 @@ match_orclause_to_indexcol(PlannerInfo *root, >>>>> Assert(IsA(orclause, BoolExpr)); >>>>> Assert(orclause->boolop == OR_EXPR); >>>>> >>>>> + /* Ignore index if it doesn't support index scans */ >>>>> + if(!index->amsearcharray) >>>>> + return NULL; >>>>> + >>>>> >>>>> Agree. I have updated the patch >>>>> >>>>> /* >>>>> * Try to convert a list of OR-clauses to a single SAOP expression. Each >>>>> * OR entry must be in the form: (indexkey operator constant) or (constant >>>>> >>>>> The test bug: >>>>> EXPLAIN SELECT COUNT(*) FROM tbl WHERE u = '00000000000000000000000000000000' OR u = '11111111111111111111111111111111'; >>>>> QUERY PLAN >>>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- >>>>> Aggregate (cost=12.46..12.47 rows=1 width=8) >>>>> -> Bitmap Heap Scan on tbl (cost=2.14..12.41 rows=18 width=0) >>>>> Recheck Cond: ((u = '00000000-0000-0000-0000-000000000000'::uuid) OR (u = '11111111-1111-1111-1111-111111111111'::uuid)) >>>>> -> BitmapOr (cost=2.14..2.14 rows=18 width=0) >>>>> -> Bitmap Index Scan on idx (cost=0.00..1.07 rows=9 width=0) >>>>> Index Cond: (u = '00000000-0000-0000-0000-000000000000'::uuid) >>>>> -> Bitmap Index Scan on idx (cost=0.00..1.07 rows=9 width=0) >>>>> Index Cond: (u = '11111111-1111-1111-1111-111111111111'::uuid) >>>>> (8 rows) >>>> I slightly revised the fix and added similar check to >>>> group_similar_or_args(). Could you, please, review that before >>>> commit? >>>> >>> I agree with changes. Thank you! >> Andrei, Alena, thank you for the feedback. Pushed! > I think we should give some more attention to the patch enabling OR to > SAOP transformation for joins (first time posted in [1]). I think we > tried to only work with Const and Param, because we were previously > working during parse stage. So, at that stage if we have the clause > like "a.x = 1 OR a.x = b.x OR b.x = 2", then we don't know if we > should transform it into "a.x = ANY(1, b.x) OR b.x = 2" or into "a.x > =1 OR b.x = ANY(a.x, 2)". But if we do the transformation during the > index matching, we would actually be able to try the both and select > the best. > > The revised patch is attached. Most notably it revises > group_similar_or_args() to have the same notion of const-ness as > others. In that function we split potential index key and constant > early to save time on enumerating all possible index keys. But it > appears to be possible to split by relids bitmapsets: index key should > use our relid, while const shouldn't. Other that that, comments, > commit message and naming are revised. > > Links. > 1. https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/CAPpHfdu9QJ%3DGbua3CUUH2KKG_8urakJTen4JD47PGh9wWP%3DQxQ%40mail.gmail.com > I like your idea. I looked at your patch and haven't noticed any bugs yet, but my review is not finished. I think we're missing tests here - I only noticed one difference in the regression test related to your specific improvement. I thought it would be possible to look at cases where q1 and q2 are not equal to an integer constant table, but have a more complex structure. For example, set the conditions "q1 as select (1=1)::integer" and "q2 as select (1=0)::integer". -- Regards, Alena Rybakina Postgres Professional
pgsql-hackers by date: