Re: Early WIP/PoC for inlining CTEs

From: Mike Rylander <mrylander(at)gmail(dot)com>
To: Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>
Cc: Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de>, Thomas Munro <thomas(dot)munro(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>, Andreas Karlsson <andreas(at)proxel(dot)se>, Andrew Gierth <andrew(at)tao11(dot)riddles(dot)org(dot)uk>, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, David Fetter <david(at)fetter(dot)org>, Pg Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: Early WIP/PoC for inlining CTEs
Date: 2019-01-11 19:39:50
Message-ID: CAO8ar==+dFPzT36WztJbBDQ-gEfZSHKZLrGP8t96aD=idyDOkw@mail.gmail.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On Fri, Jan 11, 2019 at 2:10 PM Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
>
> On Fri, Jan 11, 2019 at 2:04 PM Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> wrote:
> > > Maybe we could consider a more extensible syntax that is attached to
> > > the contained SELECT rather than the containing WITH. Then CTEs would
> > > be less special; there'd be a place to put hints controlling top-level
> > > queries, subselects, views etc too (perhaps eventually join hints,
> > > parallelism hints etc, but "materialize this" would be just another
> > > one of those things). That'd be all-in.
> >
> > I think you have some purity arguments here, but the likelihood of us
> > developing a full-blown solution is not that high, and the lack of
> > inlinable CTEs is *really* hurting us. As long as the design doesn't
> > block a full solution, if we go there, I think it's a very acceptable
> > blemish in comparison to the benefits we'd get.
>
> Also, it seems to me that this is properly a property of the
> individual WITH clause, not the query as a whole.
>
> I mean I suppose we could do
>
> WITH or_with_out_you OPTIONS (materialized false) AS (SELECT 'mariah
> carey') SELECT ...
>
> That'd allow for extensibility, have the write scope, and look like
> what we do elsewhere. It looks a little less elegant than
>
> WITH cte_name [[NOT] MATERIALIZED] AS (query) main_query...
>
> ...but maybe elegance for extensibility is a good trade.
>

Here, have $0.02 from the peanut gallery...

I mildly prefer the latter, elegant spelling, but if CTE inlining does
become a thing then I would /really/ want some way, any way, of
telling Postgres that I want it to materialize a particular CTE.

I use that currently-documented property of CTEs to structure large,
complicated OLAP queries on a regular basis, for performance.
Sometimes, such as when you have dozens of tables in a complex join
tree, breaking the query into logically related chunks (which I know
about, but the planner does not) via CTE is the only way to give the
planner a fighting chance of finding a good plan. Otherwise you get
stuck in the GEQO ghetto, or planning time is some non-trivial
multiple of execution time.

Thanks,

--
Mike Rylander
| Executive Director
| Equinox Open Library Initiative
| phone: 1-877-OPEN-ILS (673-6457)
| email: miker(at)equinoxinitiative(dot)org
| web: http://equinoxinitiative.org

In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Mitar 2019-01-11 19:47:54 Re: Feature: temporary materialized views
Previous Message Robert Haas 2019-01-11 19:22:01 Re: Prevent extension creation in temporary schemas