Re: index scan over composite type
Teodor Sigaevwrites: > Thank you. Seems, it works, at least I can't find a counter-example for that. Will push, thanks for reviewing. regards, tom lane
Re: index scan over composite type
Thank you. Seems, it works, at least I can't find a counter-example for that. Tom Lane wrote: Teodor Sigaevwrites: I'm not understand why postgres prefers to sort table instead of using index only scan when query is a simple inner join on composite type. Query with equality clause with constant works fine with index scan but join not. Could somebody point me why? Thank you. Hmm ... the reason why not seems to be that canonicalize_ec_expression() improperly adds a RelabelType node, causing the composite-type Vars to not be recognized as matching the eclass they should match. The attached patch fixes it and doesn't seem to break anything in the regression tests. This raises the question of why we don't treat type RECORD more like a true polymorphic type, but that's a can of worms I don't particularly want to open right now. For the moment, this is the only IsPolymorphicType call in the planner AFAICS, so there's some reason to hope that we don't have more bugs of the same ilk. regards, tom lane -- Teodor Sigaev E-mail: teo...@sigaev.ru WWW: http://www.sigaev.ru/
Re: index scan over composite type
Teodor Sigaevwrites: > I'm not understand why postgres prefers to sort table instead of using > index only scan when query is a simple inner join on composite type. > Query with equality clause with constant works fine with index scan but > join not. Could somebody point me why? Thank you. Hmm ... the reason why not seems to be that canonicalize_ec_expression() improperly adds a RelabelType node, causing the composite-type Vars to not be recognized as matching the eclass they should match. The attached patch fixes it and doesn't seem to break anything in the regression tests. This raises the question of why we don't treat type RECORD more like a true polymorphic type, but that's a can of worms I don't particularly want to open right now. For the moment, this is the only IsPolymorphicType call in the planner AFAICS, so there's some reason to hope that we don't have more bugs of the same ilk. regards, tom lane diff --git a/src/backend/optimizer/path/equivclass.c b/src/backend/optimizer/path/equivclass.c index 70a925c..e8cdea5 100644 --- a/src/backend/optimizer/path/equivclass.c +++ b/src/backend/optimizer/path/equivclass.c @@ -497,8 +497,9 @@ canonicalize_ec_expression(Expr *expr, Oid req_type, Oid req_collation) /* * For a polymorphic-input-type opclass, just keep the same exposed type. + * RECORD opclasses work like polymorphic types for this purpose. */ - if (IsPolymorphicType(req_type)) + if (IsPolymorphicType(req_type) || req_type == RECORDOID) req_type = expr_type; /*
index scan over composite type
Hi! I'm not understand why postgres prefers to sort table instead of using index only scan when query is a simple inner join on composite type. Query with equality clause with constant works fine with index scan but join not. Could somebody point me why? Thank you. And I'm not able to force merge_join with index scans with any combination of enable_* variables. Attached script is a self-contained test script. Pg config file is default. explain select a.idv, b.idv from a, b where a.idv = b.idv; Merge Join (cost=25751.64..27751.64 rows=10 width=74) Merge Cond: (a.idv = b.idv) -> Sort (cost=12875.82..13125.82 rows=10 width=37) Sort Key: a.idv -> Seq Scan on a (cost=0.00..1834.00 rows=10 width=37) -> Sort (cost=12875.82..13125.82 rows=10 width=37) Sort Key: b.idv -> Seq Scan on b (cost=0.00..1834.00 rows=10 width=37) -- Teodor Sigaev E-mail: teo...@sigaev.ru WWW: http://www.sigaev.ru/ test.sql Description: application/sql