Re: [HACKERS] [PATCH] Overestimated filter cost and its mitigation

Greetings,

* Michael Paquier (michael(dot)paquier(at)gmail(dot)com) wrote:
> On Thu, Nov 9, 2017 at 12:33 PM, Ashutosh Bapat
> <ashutosh(dot)bapat(at)enterprisedb(dot)com> wrote:
> > Looking at order_qual_clauses(), we can say that a set of quals q1
> > .... qn are ordered the same irrespective of the set of clauses they
> > are subset of. E.g. if {q1 .. qn} is subset of Q (ordered as Qo) and
> > also Q' (ordered as Q'o) the order in which they appear in Qo and Q'o
> > is same. So, even if different paths segregate the clauses in
> > different set, within each set the order is same. FWIW, we can order
> > all clauses in largest set once and use that order every time. Albeit
> > we will have to remember the order somewhere OR make the separator
> > routine retain the order in the larger set, which I guess is true
> > about all separator functions.
>
> I am not sure what to think about this patch, so moved to next CF. The
> patch still applies. Hayamizu-san, it would be nice as well if you
> could review other's patches. One patch reviewed for one patch
> submitted, with equal difficulty. You should also get a community
> account so as it is possible to add your name as an author of this
> patch.

While this patch does still apply, it doesn't pass the 'make check'
regression tests and there appears to be concern raised up-thread about
the performance impact.

Yuto Hayamizu, it looks like some good questions were raised and which
need to be addressed, in addition to making sure that the patch at least
passes 'make check', so I'm leaving this as waiting-for-author. If you
believe the patch is no longer viable, we can change it to 'returned
with feedback', otherwise, an updated patch and some responses to the
questions raised would be great as we're already a week into this
commitfest and this thread has been dormant since near the start of the
last CF.

Thanks!

Stephen