| From: | Tomas Vondra <tomas(at)vondra(dot)me> |
|---|---|
| To: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: should we have a fast-path planning for OLTP starjoins? |
| Date: | 2025-11-26 18:30:38 |
| Message-ID: | 0b77b793-ba39-41a4-bfe5-c0fc96db8a23@vondra.me |
| Views: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 11/24/25 21:55, Robert Haas wrote:
> On Sun, Nov 23, 2025 at 9:39 AM Tomas Vondra <tomas(at)vondra(dot)me> wrote:
>>> 1. I do not think I believe the premise that the dimension tables
>>> typically won't have restriction clauses. ISTM that a typical
>>> query might be like
>>>
>>> select sum(o.total_price) from
>>> orders o
>>> join customers c on c.id = o.c_id
>>> join products p on p.id = o.p_id
>>> where c.customer_name = 'Wile E Coyote'
>>> and p.product_name = 'Rocket Skates';
>>>
>>
>> Good question. I don't have a great evidence such joins to dimensions
>> (without additional restrictions) are a common case. It's partially a
>> guess and partially based on my past experience.
>
> In my experience, restriction clauses on dimension tables are very common.
>
Sure, but does that imply the inverse case (dimensions without non-join
restrictions) are not? I'm not sure.
regards
--
Tomas Vondra
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Álvaro Herrera | 2025-11-26 18:34:16 | Re: Issues with ON CONFLICT UPDATE and REINDEX CONCURRENTLY |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2025-11-26 18:25:57 | Re: Partial hash index is not used for implied qual. |