From: | Thomas Munro <thomas(dot)munro(at)gmail(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | "Li, Zheng" <zhelli(at)amazon(dot)com> |
Cc: | "pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: NOT IN subquery optimization |
Date: | 2019-08-01 22:57:45 |
Message-ID: | CA+hUKGLr2_xwZsKdd+MxM6Vei7j83wxYrCJQstWAXZU_3jjKHg@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Sat, Jun 29, 2019 at 4:19 AM Li, Zheng <zhelli(at)amazon(dot)com> wrote:>
> Resending patch v2.2, looks like the previous submission did not get attached to the original thread.
>
> This version fixed an issue that involves CTE. Because we call subquery_planner before deciding whether to proceed with the transformation, we need to setup access to upper level CTEs at this point if the subquery contains any CTE RangeTblEntry.
>
> Also added more test cases of NOT IN accessing CTEs, including recursive CTE. It's nice that CTE can use index now!
Hi Zheng, Jim,
With my Commitfest doozer hat on, I have moved this entry to the
September 'fest. I noticed in passing that it needs to be adjusted
for the new pg_list.h API. It'd be good to get some feedback from
reviewers on these two competing proposals:
https://commitfest.postgresql.org/24/2020/
https://commitfest.postgresql.org/24/2023/
--
Thomas Munro
https://enterprisedb.com
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Thomas Munro | 2019-08-01 23:07:12 | Re: Data-only pg_rewind, take 2 |
Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2019-08-01 22:57:16 | Re: Optimze usage of immutable functions as relation |