Re: [HACKERS] Design notes for EquivalenceClasses

```"Zeugswetter Andreas ADI SD" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Tom Lane writes:
>> SELECT *
>> FROM a LEFT JOIN
>> (SELECT * FROM b JOIN c ON b.y = c.z WHERE b.y = 10) ss
>> ON a.x = ss.y
>> WHERE a.x = 42;
>>
>> ... In this example, notice also that
>> a.x = ss.y (really a.x = b.y) is not an equivalence clause because its
>> applicability to b is restricted by the outer join; thus we do not make
>> the mistake of concluding b.y = 42, even though we do have an equivalence
>> class for {a.x 42}.```
```
> I am not sure I understand the logic behind the above restriction
> though.  Although b.y cannot be in the EquivalenceClass as described,
> it still seems important/possible to push down b.y = 42 into ss.

Hmmm ... yeah, you're right, this example needs revision because we
actually do create {b.y 42} as a "below outer join" equivalence.
In fact with patch I get a plan like

Nested Loop Left Join  (cost=76.05..139.42 rows=1331 width=12)
->  Seq Scan on a  (cost=0.00..36.75 rows=11 width=4)
Filter: (x = 42)
->  Materialize  (cost=76.05..77.26 rows=121 width=8)
->  Result  (cost=36.76..75.93 rows=121 width=8)
One-Time Filter: (42 = 10)
->  Nested Loop  (cost=36.76..75.93 rows=121 width=8)
->  Seq Scan on b  (cost=0.00..36.75 rows=11 width=4)
Filter: (y = 10)
->  Materialize  (cost=36.76..36.87 rows=11 width=4)
->  Seq Scan on c  (cost=0.00..36.75 rows=11 width=4)
Filter: (z = 10)

which'll cause it to not evaluate the b/c join at all, as you suggested.
8.2 also realizes that b.y=42 is required, but it's a lot stupider about
what to do with the knowledge:

Hash Left Join  (cost=81.79..118.59 rows=11 width=12)
Hash Cond: (a.x = b.y)
->  Seq Scan on a  (cost=0.00..36.75 rows=11 width=4)
Filter: (x = 42)
->  Hash  (cost=81.65..81.65 rows=11 width=8)
->  Hash Join  (cost=42.11..81.65 rows=11 width=8)
Hash Cond: (c.z = b.y)
->  Seq Scan on c  (cost=0.00..31.40 rows=2140 width=4)
->  Hash  (cost=42.10..42.10 rows=1 width=4)
->  Seq Scan on b  (cost=0.00..42.10 rows=1 width=4)
Filter: ((y = 10) AND (y = 42))

Notice 8.2 also fails to derive c.z=10.

> It seems what we want in addition to EquivalenceClasses, is logic to
> push (or rather copy) down a restriction but keep the upperlevel part
> of it for outer joins.

No, the bit that I was missing when I wrote that sentence was the
concept of a "below outer join" EquivalenceClass that allows values
to go to null.

regards, tom lane