Re: Optimize constant MinMax expressions

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: Vik Fearing <vik(dot)fearing(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>
Cc: PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: Optimize constant MinMax expressions
Date: 2018-12-29 23:36:38
Message-ID: 7866.1546126598@sss.pgh.pa.us
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Vik Fearing <vik(dot)fearing(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> writes:
> I was working on a little thing where I needed to simulate BETWEEN
> SYMMETRIC so naturally I used least() and greatest(). I was a little
> surprised to see that my expressions were not folded into straight
> constants and the estimates were way off as a consequence.

> I came up with the attached patch to fix it, but it's so ridiculously
> small that I fear I'm missing something.

Well, the question this is begging is in the adjacent comment:

* Generic handling for node types whose own processing is
* known to be immutable, and for which we need no smarts

Can we assume that the underlying datatype comparison function is
immutable? I guess so, since we assume that in nearby code such as
contain_mutable_functions_walker, but I don't think it should be done
without at least a comment.

BTW, poking around for other code involving MinMaxExpr, I notice that
contain_leaked_vars_walker is effectively assuming that all datatype
comparison functions are leakproof, an assumption I find a bit debatable.
Maybe it's all right, but again, it should certainly not have gone without
a comment.

regards, tom lane

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Tom Lane 2018-12-29 23:56:17 Re: Poor buildfarm coverage of strong-random alternatives
Previous Message legrand legrand 2018-12-29 23:27:18 Planning counters in pg_stat_statements (using pgss_store)