Hi! you are discussing it out of thread - I warn you just in case. Sorry
for not replying on your email, I have noticed it now only.
On 08.05.2026 20:45, Peter Petrov wrote:
Hello Alena!
Sorry for my long silence, if you are interested in my thoughts about
your patch then here they are:
1) First of all, let's read the comment below.
/*
* Separate out the WHERE clause. (We could theoretically also remove
* top-level plain JOIN/ON clauses, but it's probably not worth the
* trouble.)
*/
We need to separate two things: the jointree and the WHERE clause, so
it's possible to do something like this
whereClause = subselect->jointree->quals;
subselect->jointree->quals = NULL;
jointree = subselect->jointree;
subselect->jointree = NULL;
if (contain_vars_of_level((Node *) subselect, 1))
return NULL;
/* Do our checks in the jointree and stop if we can't do pullup */
/* Return the jointree back */
subselect->jointree = jointree;
I think it's more clear than in the patch right now.
I need to learn it and analyze. I'll answer on this a bit later.
2) We don't need to use get_relids_in_jointree() and nullable_above
since the tree's traversing is from the top to the bottom and we know that
in LEFT JOIN and FULL JOIN LHS is nullable
in RIGHT JOIN and FULL JOIN RHS is nullable
So we can use a boolean variables like this
rarg_is_nullable = (is_nullable_side ||
j->jointype == JOIN_FULL ||
j->jointype == JOIN_LEFT);
larg_is_nullable = (is_nullable_side ||
j->jointype == JOIN_FULL ||
j->jointype == JOIN_RIGHT);
And then work with them. I suspect it will be much easier to follow
that in the patch right now.
I think it doesn't enough - your null object can be located on the
subquery upper on the tree - I the reference on this and the standard
check for nullable side can miss it. I caught similar case before and
added it in regression tests.
I fear that you don't check FULL JOINS here.
maybe yes - I need to check it again. in my opinion, we don't need to
provide optimization for this at all for full joins - it is rare case.
3) To be honest, we just work with the top jointree, we don't descend
to subqueries, therefore, I am not sure that the mutator is a good
name here.
AFAICS, mutators were designed to modify something including some
parts of the subqueries but it's not the case here.
It's a simple jointree traversal, we don't need
HoistJoinQualsContext as well.
I think, we need three things here:
Node *node - the node in the jointree we are working with
bool is_nullable_side - are we on the nullable side of some outer join
List **exprs - the list in which we collect JoinExpr and FromExpr
with outer references.
I propose just traverse the jointree, make our checks and then
collect JoinExpr and FromExpr for the further processing if everything
is good.
I think we should save mutator because it provides some transformations
in subquery. But I'll check it again just in case to consider it from
your points of view and ask you some particular questions to understand
it clearly.
4) After checking the WHERE clause and the jointree we can traverse
our list, make a new whereClause by appending quals with outer
references and then replace quals in JoinExprs to constant true.
Something like make_and_qual()
5) I have also noticed that you are using canonicalize_qual()
I suspect we don't need it either since it will be called later.
And here is the stack
subquery_planner
pull_up_sublinks(root)
preprocess_qual_conditions(root, (Node *) parse->jointree)
j->quals = preprocess_expression(root, j->quals, EXPRKIND_QUAL)
expr = (Node *) canonicalize_qual((Expr *) expr, false)
find_duplicate_ors(qual, is_check)
So we will flatten all nested BoolExpr with the type BOOL_AND.
6) I have noticed the new output from one regression test. The
previous output was
Merge Anti Join
Merge Cond: (t1.c1 = t2.c2)
-> Sort
Sort Key: t1.c1
-> Seq Scan on tt4x t1
-> Sort
and the new output is the Hash Anti Join
Hash Anti Join
Hash Cond: (t1.c1 = t2.c2)
-> Seq Scan on tt4x t1
-> Hash
This is very suspicious, why does this patch cause such changes?
7) There is a SubLink which won't be pulled up, you can see it below
explain (COSTS OFF)
SELECT *
FROM tenk1 A
WHERE EXISTS (SELECT 1
FROM tenk2 B, (SELECT f.hundred
FROM (SELECT A.hundred) AS f
) AS v
WHERE B.hundred = v.hundred
);
And the reason is the following. (SELECT A.hundred) is the subquery
and won't be processed until the function pull_up_sublinks() finishes
its job.
But it leads us to an interesting observation. Maybe we could process
it somewhere in the SS_process_sublinks().
Perhaps, f and v subqueries could be pulled up and then the EXISTS
sublink could be replaced with a SEMI JOIN.
I don't know whether we should solve this problem right now. I have
never seen such queries in real workloads but it doesn't mean that
they don't exist.
In short, I think your patch can be simplified.
I need to check it again and need some time to look at this.
Thank you for your feedback and opinion. I'll fix it and provide new
polished version and happy to hear your further review!
--
-----------
Best regards,
Alena Rybakina
YandexCloud
