Re: Rangejoin rebased

On 3/28/18 2:23 PM, Andres Freund wrote: > On 2018-03-28 14:18:42 -0400, David Steele wrote: >> It seems that a new patch is needed here but none has been presented. >> I've marked this Waiting on Author for the moment, but I really think it >> should be marked Returned with Feedback and submitted

Re: Rangejoin rebased

Hi, On 2018-03-28 14:18:42 -0400, David Steele wrote: > It seems that a new patch is needed here but none has been presented. > I've marked this Waiting on Author for the moment, but I really think it > should be marked Returned with Feedback and submitted to the next CF > when a new patch is

Re: Rangejoin rebased

On 3/2/18 11:44 AM, Robert Haas wrote: > On Fri, Mar 2, 2018 at 11:12 AM, Alexander Kuzmenkov > wrote: >> On 16.01.2018 10:49, Jeff Davis wrote: >>> My proposed fix is to make an internal opfamily identical to the >>> external one, such that it's not recognized as part

Re: Rangejoin rebased

On Fri, Mar 2, 2018 at 11:12 AM, Alexander Kuzmenkov wrote: > On 16.01.2018 10:49, Jeff Davis wrote: >> My proposed fix is to make an internal opfamily identical to the >> external one, such that it's not recognized as part of the same EC, >> and the planner won't try

Re: Rangejoin rebased

On 16.01.2018 10:49, Jeff Davis wrote: My proposed fix is to make an internal opfamily identical to the external one, such that it's not recognized as part of the same EC, and the planner won't try to eliminate it. It loses out on potential optimizations, but those are mostly theoretical since

Re: Rangejoin rebased

On Tue, Jan 23, 2018 at 2:04 AM, Simon Riggs wrote: > Perhaps we are misunderstanding each other > > TIMESTAMP <@ RANGE1 doesn't match if RANGE1 is empty > and that is the most important case When <@ is supported, that case should be fine if range1 is on the outer. The

Re: Rangejoin rebased

On 23 January 2018 at 05:08, Jeff Davis wrote: > On Fri, Jan 19, 2018 at 2:07 AM, Simon Riggs wrote: >> err... that isn't correct. An empty range matches nothing, so can be >> ignored in joins. >> >> So probably best to explain some more, please. > > The

Re: Rangejoin rebased

On Fri, Jan 19, 2018 at 2:07 AM, Simon Riggs wrote: > err... that isn't correct. An empty range matches nothing, so can be > ignored in joins. > > So probably best to explain some more, please. The semantics of R1 @> R2 will return true if R1 is a non-NULL range and R2 is

Re: Rangejoin rebased

On 19 January 2018 at 08:25, Simon Riggs wrote: > On 17 January 2018 at 05:49, Jeff Davis wrote: >> On Wed, Jan 10, 2018 at 7:49 AM, Simon Riggs wrote: >>> Do we optimize for TIMESTAMP <@ RANGE as well? >> >> Not currently. It

Re: Rangejoin rebased

On 17 January 2018 at 05:49, Jeff Davis wrote: > On Wed, Jan 10, 2018 at 7:49 AM, Simon Riggs wrote: >> Do we optimize for TIMESTAMP <@ RANGE as well? > > Not currently. It requires a little extra complexity because empty > ranges will match anything and

Re: Rangejoin rebased

On Fri, Jan 12, 2018 at 11:02 AM, Alexander Kuzmenkov wrote: > The sort order isn't right for the join, it seems. I remember having similar > troubles with my full merge join implementation. I tried filtering > unsuitable paths in try_mergejoin_path, but that was not

Re: Rangejoin rebased

On Tue, Jan 9, 2018 at 11:24 PM, Jeff Davis wrote: >> Just to emphasise why we want this, it might be better for the EXPLAIN >> to say "Time Range Join" when the ranges being joined are Time Ranges, >> and for other cases to just say "Range Join". The use of the word >> Merge

Re: Rangejoin rebased

Hi Jeff, Just a quick comment -- I ran a slightly modified version of a query from the regression tests, and got an assertion failure: select i1, ir1, i2, ir2   from (select * from rangejoin_left order by ir1 desc) as a1 inner join (select * from rangejoin_right order by ir2 desc) as a2    

Re: Rangejoin rebased

On 10 January 2018 at 04:24, Jeff Davis wrote: > Done. I think you need to make changes to other parts of the docs also, so that it is clear what will now be possible https://www.postgresql.org/docs/devel/static/using-explain.html

Re: Rangejoin rebased

On 10 January 2018 at 04:24, Jeff Davis wrote: > On Sat, Jan 6, 2018 at 10:38 AM, Simon Riggs wrote: >> For this to be useful, it needs to include some details of how to use >> it when people have NOT used range datatypes in their tables. > > Good idea.

Rangejoin rebased

New rangejoin patch attached. I had previously attempted to make this work well for multiple range join keys, but this patch implements single rangejoin keys only, and the rest of the rangejoin clauses are effectively just rechecks. I believe it can be made effective for multiple rangejoin keys,