On 2016/12/28 15:54, Ashutosh Bapat wrote:
On Wed, Dec 28, 2016 at 9:20 AM, Etsuro Fujita
<fujita.ets...@lab.ntt.co.jp> wrote:
On 2016/12/27 22:03, Ashutosh Bapat wrote:
If mergejoin_allowed is true and mergeclauselist is non-NIL but
hashclauselist is NIL (that's rare but there can be types has merge
operators but not hash operators), we will end up returning NULL. I
think we want to create a merge join in that case. I think the order
of conditions should be 1. check hashclause_list then create hash join
2. else check if merge allowed, create merge join. It looks like that
would cover all the cases, if there aren't any hash clauses, and also
no merge clauses, we won't be able to implement a FULL join, so it
will get rejected during path creation itself.


Right, maybe we can do that by doing similar things as in match_unsort_outer
and/or sort_inner_and_outer.  But as you mentioned, the case is rare, so the
problem would be whether it's worth complicating the code (and if it's
worth, whether we should do that at the first version of the function).

All I am requesting is changing the order of conditions. That doesn't
complicate the code.

I might have misunderstood your words, but you are saying we should consider mergejoin paths with some mergeclauses in the case where hashclauses is NIL, right? To do so, we would need to consider the sort orders of outer/inner paths, which would make the code complicated.

The reason we chose to pick up an existing path was that the
discussion in thread [1] concluded the efficiency of the local plan
wasn't a concern for EPQ. Are we now saying something otherwise?

No, I won't.  Usually, the overhead would be negligible, but in some cases
where there are many concurrent updates, the overhead might not be
negligible due to many EPQ rechecks.  So it would be better to have an
efficient local plan.

All that the EPQ rechecks do is apply the join and other quals again
on the base relation rows. Will choice of plan affect the efficiency?

Merge or hash joins would need extra steps to start that work (for example, building a hash table from the inner relation for a hash join.)

Best regards,
Etsuro Fujita




--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers

Reply via email to