Re: Optimize common expressions in projection evaluation

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: Peifeng Qiu <pgsql(at)qiupf(dot)dev>
Cc: "David G(dot) Johnston" <david(dot)g(dot)johnston(at)gmail(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: Optimize common expressions in projection evaluation
Date: 2022-12-05 04:27:57
Message-ID: 3101062.1670214477@sss.pgh.pa.us
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Peifeng Qiu <pgsql(at)qiupf(dot)dev> writes:
>> the need for this code seems not that great. But as to the code itself I'm unable to properly judge.

> A simplified version of my use case is like this:
> CREATE FOREIGN TABLE ft(rawdata json);
> INSERT INTO tbl SELECT (convert_func(rawdata)).* FROM ft;

It might be worth noting that the code as we got it from Berkeley
could do this scenario without multiple evaluations of convert_func().
Memory is foggy, but I believe it involved essentially a two-level
targetlist. Unfortunately, the scheme was impossibly baroque and
buggy, so we eventually ripped it out altogether in favor of the
multiple-evaluation behavior you see today. I think that commit
62e29fe2e might have been what ripped it out, but I'm not quite
sure. It's about the right time-frame, anyway.

I mention this because trying to reverse-engineer this situation
in execExpr seems seriously ugly and inefficient, even assuming
you can make it non-buggy. The right solution has to involve never
expanding foo().* into duplicate function calls in the first place,
which is the way it used to be. Maybe if you dug around in those
twenty-year-old changes you could get some inspiration.

I tend to agree with David that LATERAL offers a good-enough
solution in most cases ... but it is annoying that we accept
this syntax and then pessimize it.

regards, tom lane

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message houzj.fnst@fujitsu.com 2022-12-05 04:29:30 RE: Perform streaming logical transactions by background workers and parallel apply
Previous Message David Rowley 2022-12-05 04:16:53 Re: Bug in row_number() optimization