Re: WIP Join Removal

From: Gregory Stark <stark(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>
To: Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndQuadrant(dot)com>
Cc: Heikki Linnakangas <heikki(dot)linnakangas(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>, List pgsql-patches <pgsql-patches(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: WIP Join Removal
Date: 2008-09-02 11:05:38
Message-ID: 87od36u7st.fsf@oxford.xeocode.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-patches

Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndQuadrant(dot)com> writes:

> Same answer, just slower. Removing the join makes the access to a into a
> SeqScan, whereas it was a two-table index plan when both tables present.
> The two table plan is added by the immediately preceding call add_... -
> i.e. that plan is only added during join time not during planning of
> base relations.

Perhaps it would clearer to discuss a non-outer join here:

select invoices.*
from customer join invoices using (company_id,customer_id)
where customer_id = ?

where there's a foreign key relation guaranteeing that every invoice has a
matching <company_id, customer_id>.

If there's an index on customer(customer_id) but not on invoices(customer_id)
then conceivably it would be faster to use that than scan all of the invoices.

I wonder if it would be more worthwhile to remove them and have a subsequent
phase where we look for possible joins to *add*. So even if the user writes
"select * from invoices where customer_id=?" the planner might be able to
discover that it can find those records quicker by scanning customer, finding
the matching <company_id,customer_id> and then using an index to look them up
in invoices.

--
Gregory Stark
EnterpriseDB http://www.enterprisedb.com
Ask me about EnterpriseDB's 24x7 Postgres support!

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-patches by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Simon Riggs 2008-09-02 11:20:13 Re: WIP Join Removal
Previous Message Heikki Linnakangas 2008-09-02 11:03:24 Re: WIP Join Removal