Re: 回复：Re: Re: 回复：Re: Is it worth pushing conditions to sublink/subplan?
I corrected it according to your suggestion.
thanks
Wenjing.
Zhihong Yu 于2021年12月25日周六 02:26写道：
>
>
> On Thu, Dec 23, 2021 at 3:52 AM 曾文旌(义从)
> wrote:
>
>>
>> Fixed a bug found during testing.
>>
>>
>> Wenjing
>>
>>
Hi,
> + if (condition_is_safe_pushdown_to_sublink(rinfo,
> expr_info->outer))
> + {
> + /* replace qual expr from outer var = const to var = const
> and push down to sublink query */
> + sublink_query_push_qual(subquery, (Node
> *)copyObject(rinfo->clause), expr_info->outer, expr_info->inner);
>
> Since sublink_query_push_qual() is always guarded
> by condition_is_safe_pushdown_to_sublink(), it seems
> sublink_query_push_qual() can be folded into
> condition_is_safe_pushdown_to_sublink().
>
> For generate_base_implied_equalities():
>
> + if (ec->ec_processed)
> + {
> + ec_index++;
> + continue;
> + }
> + else if (list_length(ec->ec_members) > 1)
>
> Minor comment: the keyword `else` can be omitted (due to `continue` above).
>
> +* Since there may be an unexpanded sublink in the targetList,
> +* we'll skip it for now.
>
> Since there may be an -> If there is an
>
> + {"lazy_process_sublink", PGC_USERSET, QUERY_TUNING_METHOD,
> + gettext_noop("enable lazy process sublink."),
>
> Looking at existing examples from src/backend/utils/misc/guc.c,
> enable_lazy_sublink_processing seems to be consistent with existing guc
> variable naming.
>
> +lazy_process_sublinks(PlannerInfo *root, bool single_result_rte)
>
> lazy_process_sublinks -> lazily_process_sublinks
>
> + else
> + {
> /* There shouldn't be any OJ info to translate, as yet */
> Assert(subroot->join_info_list == NIL);
>
> Indentation for the else block is off.
>
> + if (istop)
> + f->quals = preprocess_expression_ext(root, f->quals,
> EXPRKIND_QUAL, false);
> + else
> + f->quals = preprocess_expression_ext(root, f->quals,
> EXPRKIND_QUAL, true);
>
> The above can be written as:
>
> + f->quals = preprocess_expression_ext(root, f->quals,
> EXPRKIND_QUAL, !istop);
>
> For find_equal_conditions_contain_uplevelvar_in_sublink_query():
> + context.has_unexpected_expr == false &&
> `!context.has_unexpected_expr` should suffice
>
> equal_expr_safety_check -> is_equal_expr_safe
>
> Cheers
>
>
0001-poc-pushdown-qual-to-sublink-v5.patch
Description: Binary data
Re: 回复：Re: Re: 回复：Re: Is it worth pushing conditions to sublink/subplan?
On Thu, Dec 23, 2021 at 3:52 AM 曾文旌(义从) wrote:
>
> Fixed a bug found during testing.
>
>
> Wenjing
>
>
>>> Hi,
+ if (condition_is_safe_pushdown_to_sublink(rinfo,
expr_info->outer))
+ {
+ /* replace qual expr from outer var = const to var = const
and push down to sublink query */
+ sublink_query_push_qual(subquery, (Node
*)copyObject(rinfo->clause), expr_info->outer, expr_info->inner);
Since sublink_query_push_qual() is always guarded
by condition_is_safe_pushdown_to_sublink(), it seems
sublink_query_push_qual() can be folded into
condition_is_safe_pushdown_to_sublink().
For generate_base_implied_equalities():
+ if (ec->ec_processed)
+ {
+ ec_index++;
+ continue;
+ }
+ else if (list_length(ec->ec_members) > 1)
Minor comment: the keyword `else` can be omitted (due to `continue` above).
+* Since there may be an unexpanded sublink in the targetList,
+* we'll skip it for now.
Since there may be an -> If there is an
+ {"lazy_process_sublink", PGC_USERSET, QUERY_TUNING_METHOD,
+ gettext_noop("enable lazy process sublink."),
Looking at existing examples from src/backend/utils/misc/guc.c,
enable_lazy_sublink_processing seems to be consistent with existing guc
variable naming.
+lazy_process_sublinks(PlannerInfo *root, bool single_result_rte)
lazy_process_sublinks -> lazily_process_sublinks
+ else
+ {
/* There shouldn't be any OJ info to translate, as yet */
Assert(subroot->join_info_list == NIL);
Indentation for the else block is off.
+ if (istop)
+ f->quals = preprocess_expression_ext(root, f->quals,
EXPRKIND_QUAL, false);
+ else
+ f->quals = preprocess_expression_ext(root, f->quals,
EXPRKIND_QUAL, true);
The above can be written as:
+ f->quals = preprocess_expression_ext(root, f->quals,
EXPRKIND_QUAL, !istop);
For find_equal_conditions_contain_uplevelvar_in_sublink_query():
+ context.has_unexpected_expr == false &&
`!context.has_unexpected_expr` should suffice
equal_expr_safety_check -> is_equal_expr_safe
Cheers
回复：回复：Re: Re: 回复：Re: Is it worth pushing conditions to sublink/subplan?
Fixed a bug found during testing.
Wenjing
--原始邮件 --
发件人:曾文旌(义从)
发送时间:Sun Dec 12 20:51:08 2021
收件人:Zhihong Yu
抄送:Tomas Vondra , wjzeng ,
PostgreSQL Hackers , shawn wang
, ggys...@gmail.com
主题:回复：Re: Re: 回复：Re: Is it worth pushing conditions to sublink/subplan?
--原始邮件 --
发件人:Zhihong Yu
发送时间:Sun Dec 12 01:13:11 2021
收件人:曾文旌(义从)
抄送:Tomas Vondra , wjzeng ,
PostgreSQL Hackers , shawn wang
, ggys...@gmail.com
主题:Re: Re: 回复：Re: Is it worth pushing conditions to sublink/subplan?
On Sat, Dec 11, 2021 at 7:31 AM 曾文旌(义从) wrote:
--原始邮件 --
发件人:Tomas Vondra
发送时间:Wed Dec 8 11:26:35 2021
收件人:曾文旌(义从) , shawn wang
, ggys...@gmail.com , PostgreSQL
Hackers
抄送:wjzeng
主题:Re: 回复：Re: Is it worth pushing conditions to sublink/subplan?
Hi,
On 12/7/21 10:44, 曾文旌(义从) wrote:
> Hi Hackers
>
> For my previous proposal, I developed a prototype and passed
> regression testing. It works similarly to subquery's qual pushdown.
> We know that sublink expands at the beginning of each level of
> query. At this stage, The query's conditions and equivalence classes
> are not processed. But after generate_base_implied_equalities the
> conditions are processed, which is why qual can push down to
> subquery but sublink not.
>
> My POC implementation chose to delay the sublink expansion in the
> SELECT clause (targetList) and where clause. Specifically, it is
> delayed after generate_base_implied_equalities. Thus, the equivalent
> conditions already established in the Up level query can be easily
> obtained in the sublink expansion process (make_subplan).
>
> For example, if the up level query has a.id = 10 and the sublink
> query has a.id = b.id, then we get b.id = 10 and push it down to the
> sublink quey. If b is a partitioned table and is partitioned by id,
> then a large number of unrelated subpartitions are pruned out, This
> optimizes a significant amount of Planner and SQL execution time,
> especially if the partitioned table has a large number of
> subpartitions and is what I want.
>
> Currently, There were two SQL failures in the regression test,
> because the expansion order of sublink was changed, which did not
> affect the execution result of SQL.
>
> Look forward to your suggestions on this proposal.
>
I took a quick look, and while I don't see / can't think of any problems
with delaying it until after generating implied equalities, there seems
to be a number of gaps.
Thank you for your attention.
1) Are there any regression tests exercising this modified behavior?
Maybe there are, but if the only changes are due to change in order of
targetlist entries, that doesn't seem like a clear proof.
It'd be good to add a couple tests exercising both the positive and
negative case (i.e. when we can and can't pushdown a qual).
I added several samples to the regress(qual_pushdown_to_sublink.sql).
and I used the partition table to show the plan status of qual being pushed
down into sublink.
Hopefully this will help you understand the details of this patch. Later, I
will add more cases.
2) apparently, contrib/postgres_fdw does crash like this:
#3 0x0077b412 in adjust_appendrel_attrs_mutator
(node=0x13f7ea0, context=0x7fffc3351b30) at appendinfo.c:470
470 Assert(!IsA(node, SubLink));
(gdb) p node
$1 = (Node *) 0x13f7ea0
(gdb) p *node
$2 = {type = T_SubLink}
Backtrace attached.
For the patch attached in the last email, I passed all the tests under
src/test/regress.
As you pointed out, there was a problem with regression under contrib(in
contrib/postgres_fdw).
This time I fixed it and the current patch (V2) can pass the check-world.
3) various parts of the patch really need at least some comments, like:
- try_push_outer_qual_to_sublink_query really needs some docs
- new stuff at the end of initsplan.c
Ok, I added some comments and will add more. If you have questions about any
details,
please point them out directly.
4) generate_base_implied_equalities
shouldn't this
if (ec->ec_processed)
;
really be?
if (ec->ec_processed)
continue;
You are right. I fixed it.
5) I'm not sure why we need the new ec_processed flag.
I did this to eliminate duplicate equalities from the two
generate_base_implied_equalities calls
1) I need the base equivalent expression generated after
generate_base_implied_equalities,
which is used to pushdown qual to sublink(lazy_process_sublinks)
2) The expansion of sublink may result in an equivalent expression with
parameters, such as a = $1,
which needs to deal with the equivalence classes again.
3) So, I added ec_processed and asked to process it again
(generate_base_implied_equalities)
after the equivalence class changed (add_eq_member/process_equivalence).
Maybe you have
回复：Re: Re: 回复：Re: Is it worth pushing conditions to sublink/subplan?
--原始邮件 --
发件人:Zhihong Yu
发送时间:Sun Dec 12 01:13:11 2021
收件人:曾文旌(义从)
抄送:Tomas Vondra , wjzeng ,
PostgreSQL Hackers , shawn wang
, ggys...@gmail.com
主题:Re: Re: 回复：Re: Is it worth pushing conditions to sublink/subplan?
On Sat, Dec 11, 2021 at 7:31 AM 曾文旌(义从) wrote:
--原始邮件 --
发件人:Tomas Vondra
发送时间:Wed Dec 8 11:26:35 2021
收件人:曾文旌(义从) , shawn wang
, ggys...@gmail.com , PostgreSQL
Hackers
抄送:wjzeng
主题:Re: 回复：Re: Is it worth pushing conditions to sublink/subplan?
Hi,
On 12/7/21 10:44, 曾文旌(义从) wrote:
> Hi Hackers
>
> For my previous proposal, I developed a prototype and passed
> regression testing. It works similarly to subquery's qual pushdown.
> We know that sublink expands at the beginning of each level of
> query. At this stage, The query's conditions and equivalence classes
> are not processed. But after generate_base_implied_equalities the
> conditions are processed, which is why qual can push down to
> subquery but sublink not.
>
> My POC implementation chose to delay the sublink expansion in the
> SELECT clause (targetList) and where clause. Specifically, it is
> delayed after generate_base_implied_equalities. Thus, the equivalent
> conditions already established in the Up level query can be easily
> obtained in the sublink expansion process (make_subplan).
>
> For example, if the up level query has a.id = 10 and the sublink
> query has a.id = b.id, then we get b.id = 10 and push it down to the
> sublink quey. If b is a partitioned table and is partitioned by id,
> then a large number of unrelated subpartitions are pruned out, This
> optimizes a significant amount of Planner and SQL execution time,
> especially if the partitioned table has a large number of
> subpartitions and is what I want.
>
> Currently, There were two SQL failures in the regression test,
> because the expansion order of sublink was changed, which did not
> affect the execution result of SQL.
>
> Look forward to your suggestions on this proposal.
>
I took a quick look, and while I don't see / can't think of any problems
with delaying it until after generating implied equalities, there seems
to be a number of gaps.
Thank you for your attention.
1) Are there any regression tests exercising this modified behavior?
Maybe there are, but if the only changes are due to change in order of
targetlist entries, that doesn't seem like a clear proof.
It'd be good to add a couple tests exercising both the positive and
negative case (i.e. when we can and can't pushdown a qual).
I added several samples to the regress(qual_pushdown_to_sublink.sql).
and I used the partition table to show the plan status of qual being pushed
down into sublink.
Hopefully this will help you understand the details of this patch. Later, I
will add more cases.
2) apparently, contrib/postgres_fdw does crash like this:
#3 0x0077b412 in adjust_appendrel_attrs_mutator
(node=0x13f7ea0, context=0x7fffc3351b30) at appendinfo.c:470
470 Assert(!IsA(node, SubLink));
(gdb) p node
$1 = (Node *) 0x13f7ea0
(gdb) p *node
$2 = {type = T_SubLink}
Backtrace attached.
For the patch attached in the last email, I passed all the tests under
src/test/regress.
As you pointed out, there was a problem with regression under contrib(in
contrib/postgres_fdw).
This time I fixed it and the current patch (V2) can pass the check-world.
3) various parts of the patch really need at least some comments, like:
- try_push_outer_qual_to_sublink_query really needs some docs
- new stuff at the end of initsplan.c
Ok, I added some comments and will add more. If you have questions about any
details,
please point them out directly.
4) generate_base_implied_equalities
shouldn't this
if (ec->ec_processed)
;
really be?
if (ec->ec_processed)
continue;
You are right. I fixed it.
5) I'm not sure why we need the new ec_processed flag.
I did this to eliminate duplicate equalities from the two
generate_base_implied_equalities calls
1) I need the base equivalent expression generated after
generate_base_implied_equalities,
which is used to pushdown qual to sublink(lazy_process_sublinks)
2) The expansion of sublink may result in an equivalent expression with
parameters, such as a = $1,
which needs to deal with the equivalence classes again.
3) So, I added ec_processed and asked to process it again
(generate_base_implied_equalities)
after the equivalence class changed (add_eq_member/process_equivalence).
Maybe you have a better suggestion, please let me know.
6) So we now have lazy_process_sublink callback? Does that mean we
expand sublinks in two places - sometimes lazily, sometimes not?
Yes, not all sublink is delayed. Let me explain this:
1) I added a GUC switch enable_lazy_process_sublink. If it is turned off, all
laz
Re: Re: 回复：Re: Is it worth pushing conditions to sublink/subplan?
On Sat, Dec 11, 2021 at 7:31 AM 曾文旌(义从) wrote:
>
>
> --原始邮件 --
> *发件人:*Tomas Vondra
> *发送时间:*Wed Dec 8 11:26:35 2021
> *收件人:*曾文旌(义从) , shawn wang <
> shawn.wang...@gmail.com>, ggys...@gmail.com ,
> PostgreSQL Hackers
> *抄送:*wjzeng
> *主题:*Re: 回复：Re: Is it worth pushing conditions to sublink/subplan?
>
>> Hi,
>>
>> On 12/7/21 10:44, 曾文旌(义从) wrote:
>> > Hi Hackers
>> >
>> > For my previous proposal, I developed a prototype and passed
>> > regression testing. It works similarly to subquery's qual pushdown.
>> > We know that sublink expands at the beginning of each level of
>> > query. At this stage, The query's conditions and equivalence classes
>> > are not processed. But after generate_base_implied_equalities the
>> > conditions are processed, which is why qual can push down to
>> > subquery but sublink not.
>> >
>> > My POC implementation chose to delay the sublink expansion in the
>> > SELECT clause (targetList) and where clause. Specifically, it is
>> > delayed after generate_base_implied_equalities. Thus, the equivalent
>> > conditions already established in the Up level query can be easily
>> > obtained in the sublink expansion process (make_subplan).
>> >
>> > For example, if the up level query has a.id = 10 and the sublink
>> > query has a.id = b.id, then we get b.id = 10 and push it down to the
>> > sublink quey. If b is a partitioned table and is partitioned by id,
>> > then a large number of unrelated subpartitions are pruned out, This
>> > optimizes a significant amount of Planner and SQL execution time,
>> > especially if the partitioned table has a large number of
>> > subpartitions and is what I want.
>> >
>> > Currently, There were two SQL failures in the regression test,
>> > because the expansion order of sublink was changed, which did not
>> > affect the execution result of SQL.
>> >
>> > Look forward to your suggestions on this proposal.
>> >
>>
>> I took a quick look, and while I don't see / can't think of any problems
>> with delaying it until after generating implied equalities, there seems
>> to be a number of gaps.
>>
>> *Thank you for your attention.*
>>
>> 1) Are there any regression tests exercising this modified behavior?
>> Maybe there are, but if the only changes are due to change in order of
>> targetlist entries, that doesn't seem like a clear proof.
>>
>> It'd be good to add a couple tests exercising both the positive and
>> negative case (i.e. when we can and can't pushdown a qual).
>>
>> *I added several samples to the regress(qual_pushdown_to_sublink.sql). *
>> *and I
>> used the partition table to show the plan status of qual being pushed down
>> into sublink.*
>>
>> *Hopefully this will help you understand the details of this patch. Later, I
>> will add more cases.*
>>
>> 2) apparently, contrib/postgres_fdw does crash like this:
>>
>> #3 0x0077b412 in adjust_appendrel_attrs_mutator
>> (node=0x13f7ea0, context=0x7fffc3351b30) at appendinfo.c:470
>> 470 Assert(!IsA(node, SubLink));
>> (gdb) p node
>> $1 = (Node *) 0x13f7ea0
>> (gdb) p *node
>> $2 = {type = T_SubLink}
>>
>> Backtrace attached.
>>
>> *For the patch attached in the last email, I passed all the tests under
>> src/test/regress.*
>> *As you pointed out, there was a problem with regression under contrib(in
>> contrib/postgres_fdw). *
>> *This time I fixed it and the current patch (V2) can pass the
>> check-world.*
>>
>> 3) various parts of the patch really need at least some comments, like:
>>
>> - try_push_outer_qual_to_sublink_query really needs some docs
>>
>> - new stuff at the end of initsplan.c
>>
>> *Ok, I added some comments and will
>> add more. If you have questions about any details,*
>> *please point them out directly.*
>>
>> 4) generate_base_implied_equalities
>>
>>shouldn't this
>>
>> if (ec->ec_processed)
>> ;
>>
>>really be?
>>
>> if (ec->ec_processed)
>> continue;
>>
>> *You are right. I fixed it.*
>>
>> 5) I'm not sure why we need the new ec_processed flag.
>>
>>
>> *I did this to eliminate duplicate equalities from the two
>> generate_base_implied_equalities calls*
>>
>> *1) I need the base equivalent expressi
回复：Re: 回复：Re: Is it worth pushing conditions to sublink/subplan?
--原始邮件 --
发件人:Tomas Vondra
发送时间:Wed Dec 8 11:26:35 2021
收件人:曾文旌(义从) , shawn wang
, ggys...@gmail.com , PostgreSQL
Hackers
抄送:wjzeng
主题:Re: 回复：Re: Is it worth pushing conditions to sublink/subplan?
Hi,
On 12/7/21 10:44, 曾文旌(义从) wrote:
> Hi Hackers
>
> For my previous proposal, I developed a prototype and passed
> regression testing. It works similarly to subquery's qual pushdown.
> We know that sublink expands at the beginning of each level of
> query. At this stage, The query's conditions and equivalence classes
> are not processed. But after generate_base_implied_equalities the
> conditions are processed, which is why qual can push down to
> subquery but sublink not.
>
> My POC implementation chose to delay the sublink expansion in the
> SELECT clause (targetList) and where clause. Specifically, it is
> delayed after generate_base_implied_equalities. Thus, the equivalent
> conditions already established in the Up level query can be easily
> obtained in the sublink expansion process (make_subplan).
>
> For example, if the up level query has a.id = 10 and the sublink
> query has a.id = b.id, then we get b.id = 10 and push it down to the
> sublink quey. If b is a partitioned table and is partitioned by id,
> then a large number of unrelated subpartitions are pruned out, This
> optimizes a significant amount of Planner and SQL execution time,
> especially if the partitioned table has a large number of
> subpartitions and is what I want.
>
> Currently, There were two SQL failures in the regression test,
> because the expansion order of sublink was changed, which did not
> affect the execution result of SQL.
>
> Look forward to your suggestions on this proposal.
>
I took a quick look, and while I don't see / can't think of any problems
with delaying it until after generating implied equalities, there seems
to be a number of gaps.
Thank you for your attention.
1) Are there any regression tests exercising this modified behavior?
Maybe there are, but if the only changes are due to change in order of
targetlist entries, that doesn't seem like a clear proof.
It'd be good to add a couple tests exercising both the positive and
negative case (i.e. when we can and can't pushdown a qual).
I added several samples to the regress(qual_pushdown_to_sublink.sql).
and I used the partition table to show the plan status of qual being pushed
down into sublink.
Hopefully this will help you understand the details of this patch. Later, I
will add more cases.
2) apparently, contrib/postgres_fdw does crash like this:
#3 0x0077b412 in adjust_appendrel_attrs_mutator
(node=0x13f7ea0, context=0x7fffc3351b30) at appendinfo.c:470
470 Assert(!IsA(node, SubLink));
(gdb) p node
$1 = (Node *) 0x13f7ea0
(gdb) p *node
$2 = {type = T_SubLink}
Backtrace attached.
For the patch attached in the last email, I passed all the tests under
src/test/regress.
As you pointed out, there was a problem with regression under contrib(in
contrib/postgres_fdw).
This time I fixed it and the current patch (V2) can pass the check-world.
3) various parts of the patch really need at least some comments, like:
- try_push_outer_qual_to_sublink_query really needs some docs
- new stuff at the end of initsplan.c
Ok, I added some comments and will add more. If you have questions about any
details,
please point them out directly.
4) generate_base_implied_equalities
shouldn't this
if (ec->ec_processed)
;
really be?
if (ec->ec_processed)
continue;
You are right. I fixed it.
5) I'm not sure why we need the new ec_processed flag.
I did this to eliminate duplicate equalities from the two
generate_base_implied_equalities calls
1) I need the base equivalent expression generated after
generate_base_implied_equalities,
which is used to pushdown qual to sublink(lazy_process_sublinks)
2) The expansion of sublink may result in an equivalent expression with
parameters, such as a = $1,
which needs to deal with the equivalence classes again.
3) So, I added ec_processed and asked to process it again
(generate_base_implied_equalities)
after the equivalence class changed (add_eq_member/process_equivalence).
Maybe you have a better suggestion, please let me know.
6) So we now have lazy_process_sublink callback? Does that mean we
expand sublinks in two places - sometimes lazily, sometimes not?
Yes, not all sublink is delayed. Let me explain this:
1) I added a GUC switch enable_lazy_process_sublink. If it is turned off, all
lazy process sublink will not happen,
qual pushdown to sublink depend on lazy procee sublink, which means no quals
will be pushed down.
2) Even if enable_lazy_process_sublink = true If Query in this level contains
some complex features,
sublink in this level query will not try do qual pushdown. (see functio
Re: 回复：Re: Is it worth pushing conditions to sublink/subplan?
Hi,
On 12/7/21 10:44, 曾文旌(义从) wrote:
> Hi Hackers
>
> For my previous proposal, I developed a prototype and passed
> regression testing. It works similarly to subquery's qual pushdown.
> We know that sublink expands at the beginning of each level of
> query. At this stage, The query's conditions and equivalence classes
> are not processed. But after generate_base_implied_equalities the
> conditions are processed, which is why qual can push down to
> subquery but sublink not.
>
> My POC implementation chose to delay the sublink expansion in the
> SELECT clause (targetList) and where clause. Specifically, it is
> delayed after generate_base_implied_equalities. Thus, the equivalent
> conditions already established in the Up level query can be easily
> obtained in the sublink expansion process (make_subplan).
>
> For example, if the up level query has a.id = 10 and the sublink
> query has a.id = b.id, then we get b.id = 10 and push it down to the
> sublink quey. If b is a partitioned table and is partitioned by id,
> then a large number of unrelated subpartitions are pruned out, This
> optimizes a significant amount of Planner and SQL execution time,
> especially if the partitioned table has a large number of
> subpartitions and is what I want.
>
> Currently, There were two SQL failures in the regression test,
> because the expansion order of sublink was changed, which did not
> affect the execution result of SQL.
>
> Look forward to your suggestions on this proposal.
>
I took a quick look, and while I don't see / can't think of any problems
with delaying it until after generating implied equalities, there seems
to be a number of gaps.
1) Are there any regression tests exercising this modified behavior?
Maybe there are, but if the only changes are due to change in order of
targetlist entries, that doesn't seem like a clear proof.
It'd be good to add a couple tests exercising both the positive and
negative case (i.e. when we can and can't pushdown a qual).
2) apparently, contrib/postgres_fdw does crash like this:
#3 0x0077b412 in adjust_appendrel_attrs_mutator
(node=0x13f7ea0, context=0x7fffc3351b30) at appendinfo.c:470
470 Assert(!IsA(node, SubLink));
(gdb) p node
$1 = (Node *) 0x13f7ea0
(gdb) p *node
$2 = {type = T_SubLink}
Backtrace attached.
3) various parts of the patch really need at least some comments, like:
- try_push_outer_qual_to_sublink_query really needs some docs
- new stuff at the end of initsplan.c
4) generate_base_implied_equalities
shouldn't this
if (ec->ec_processed)
;
really be?
if (ec->ec_processed)
continue;
5) I'm not sure why we need the new ec_processed flag.
6) So we now have lazy_process_sublink callback? Does that mean we
expand sublinks in two places - sometimes lazily, sometimes not?
regards
--
Tomas Vondra
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL CompanyCore was generated by `postgres: user contrib_regression [local] EXPLAIN
'.
Program terminated with signal SIGABRT, Aborted.
#0 0x79a07cfd79e5 in raise () from /lib64/libc.so.6
Missing separate debuginfos, use: dnf debuginfo-install
glibc-2.32-10.fc33.x86_64 libgcc-10.3.1-1.fc33.x86_64
(gdb) bt
#0 0x79a07cfd79e5 in raise () from /lib64/libc.so.6
#1 0x79a07cfc08a4 in abort () from /lib64/libc.so.6
#2 0x0094f22a in ExceptionalCondition
(conditionName=conditionName@entry=0xab44ca "!IsA(node, SubLink)",
errorType=errorType@entry=0x9a2017 "FailedAssertion",
fileName=fileName@entry=0xab55cf "appendinfo.c",
lineNumber=lineNumber@entry=470) at assert.c:69
#3 0x0077b412 in adjust_appendrel_attrs_mutator (node=0x13f7ea0,
context=0x7fffc3351b30) at appendinfo.c:470
#4 0x0071f8f9 in expression_tree_mutator (node=0x13f7f90,
mutator=0x77ae20 , context=0x7fffc3351b30) at
nodeFuncs.c:3240
#5 0x0077b025 in adjust_appendrel_attrs_mutator (node=0x13f7f90,
context=0x7fffc3351b30) at appendinfo.c:390
#6 0x00720066 in expression_tree_mutator (node=0x13eca78,
mutator=0x77ae20 , context=0x7fffc3351b30) at
nodeFuncs.c:3109
#7 0x0077b512 in adjust_appendrel_attrs (root=root@entry=0x13be5b0,
node=, nappinfos=nappinfos@entry=1,
appinfos=appinfos@entry=0x7fffc3351bd0) at appendinfo.c:210
#8 0x0073b88c in set_append_rel_size (rte=, rti=4,
rel=0xf19538, root=0x13be5b0) at allpaths.c:1056
#9 set_rel_size (root=0x13be5b0, rel=0xf19538, rti=4, rte=) at
allpaths.c:386
#10 0x0073e250 in set_base_rel_sizes (root=) at
allpaths.c:326
#11 make_one_rel (root=root@entry=0x13be5b0, joinlist=joinlist@entry=0x13edf10)
at allpaths.c:188
#12 0x00763fde in query_planner (root=root@entry=0x13be5b0,
qp_callback=qp_callback@entry=0x764eb0 ,
qp_extra=qp_extra@entry=0x7fffc3351d90, lps_callback=) at
planmain.c:286
#13 0x007694fa in grouping_planner (root=,
tuple_fraction=) at
回复：Re: Is it worth pushing conditions to sublink/subplan?
Hi Hackers
For my previous proposal, I developed a prototype and passed regression testing.
It works similarly to subquery's qual pushdown. We know that sublink expands
at the beginning of each level of query. At this stage, The query's conditions
and
equivalence classes are not processed. But after
generate_base_implied_equalities
the conditions are processed, which is why qual can push down to subquery but
sublink not.
My POC implementation chose to delay the sublink expansion in the SELECT clause
(targetList)
and where clause. Specifically, it is delayed after
generate_base_implied_equalities. Thus,
the equivalent conditions already established in the Up level query can be
easily obtained
in the sublink expansion process (make_subplan).
For example, if the up level query has a.id = 10 and the sublink query has a.id
= b.id, then
we get b.id = 10 and push it down to the sublink quey. If b is a partitioned
table and is
partitioned by id, then a large number of unrelated subpartitions are pruned
out,
This optimizes a significant amount of Planner and SQL execution time,
especially
if the partitioned table has a large number of subpartitions and is what I want.
Currently, There were two SQL failures in the regression test, because the
expansion
order of sublink was changed, which did not affect the execution result of SQL.
Look forward to your suggestions on this proposal.
Thanks
Wenjing
--原始邮件 --
发件人:shawn wang
发送时间:Wed Sep 1 10:54:50 2021
收件人:曾文旌(义从)
抄送:PostgreSQL Hackers , wjzeng
主题:Re: Is it worth pushing conditions to sublink/subplan?
I tested it the way you said and increased the number of sub-tables.
I created a hash partition table of 1000 sub-tables.
Test according to your first SQL, the optimizer cuts the unnecessary sub-tables
well.
You can see the plan:
postgres=# explain analyze
postgres-# select temp.p1 from
postgres-# (
postgres(# select p1,p2 from test1.test1hashtable x where x.p1 = '1'
postgres(# union all
postgres(# (values('1','1'))
postgres(# ) temp,
postgres-# test1.test1hashtable y
postgres-# where y.p2 = temp.p2 and y.p1 = '1' and y.p1='1';
QUERY PLAN
-
Nested Loop (cost=0.00..25.55 rows=1 width=32) (actual time=0.004..0.004
rows=0 loops=1)
Join Filter: (x.p2 = y.p2)
-> Seq Scan on test1hashtable826 y (cost=0.00..12.75 rows=1 width=32) (actual
time=0.002..0.002 rows=0 loops=1)
Filter: (p1 = '1'::text)
-> Append (cost=0.00..12.78 rows=2 width=64) (never executed)
-> Seq Scan on test1hashtable826 x (cost=0.00..12.75 rows=1 width=64) (never
executed)
Filter: (p1 = '1'::text)
-> Result (cost=0.00..0.01 rows=1 width=64) (never executed)
Planning Time: 0.158 ms
Execution Time: 0.022 ms
(10 rows)
But when the second one runs, the planning time reaches 13.942ms.
The plan:
postgres=# explain analyze
postgres-# select
postgres-# y.p1,
postgres-# (Select x.p2 from test1.test1hashtable x where y.p1 =x.p1 and
y.p2=x.p2) as b
postgres-# from test1.test1hashtable y where p1 = '1' and p2 = '1';
QUERY PLAN
--
Seq Scan on test1hashtable826 y (cost=0.00..13318.30 rows=1 width=64) (actual
time=0.004..0.047 rows=0 loops=1)
Filter: ((p1 = '1'::text) AND (p2 = '1'::text))
SubPlan 1
-> Append (cost=0.00..13305.00 rows=1000 width=32) (never executed)
-> Seq Scan on test1hashtable1 x_1 (cost=0.00..13.30 rows=1 width=32) (never
executed)
Filter: ((y.p1 = p1) AND (y.p2 = p2))
-> Seq Scan on test1hashtable1000 x_1000 (cost=0.00..13.30 rows=1 width=32)
(never executed)
Filter: ((y.p1 = p1) AND (y.p2 = p2))
Planning Time: 13.942 ms
Execution Time: 4.899 ms
(2006 rows)
This is a very worthwhile thing to do. In a relatively large business system, a
large number of partition tables and high concurrency are often used. If the
planning time is too long, this will greatly affect the business.
regards,
Shawn.
Wenjing 于2021年8月17日周二 上午10:31写道：
2021年8月16日 17:15，Wenjing 写道：
Hi Hackers,
Recently, a issue has been bothering me, This is about conditional push-down in
SQL.
I use cases from regression testing as an example.
I found that the conditions (B =1) can be pushed down into the subquery,
However, it cannot be pushed down to sublink/subplan.
If a sublink/subplan clause contains a partition table, it can be useful to get
the conditions for pruning.
So, is it worth pushing conditions to sublink/subplan?
Anybody have any ideas?
regards,
Wenjing
example:
create table p (a int, b int, c int) partition by list (a);
create table p1 partition of p for values in (1);
create table p2 partition of p for values in (2);
create table q (a int, b int, c int) partition by list (a);
create table q1 partition of q for values in (1) partition by list (b);
create table q11 parti
Re: Is it worth pushing conditions to sublink/subplan?
I tested it the way you said and increased the number of sub-tables.
I created a hash partition table of 1000 sub-tables.
Test according to your first SQL, the optimizer cuts the unnecessary
sub-tables well.
You can see the plan:
postgres=# explain analyze
postgres-# select temp.p1 from
postgres-# (
postgres(# select p1,p2 from test1.test1hashtable x where x.p1 = '1'
postgres(# union all
postgres(# (values('1','1'))
postgres(# ) temp,
postgres-# test1.test1hashtable y
postgres-# where y.p2 = temp.p2 and y.p1 = '1' and y.p1='1';
QUERY PLAN
-
Nested Loop (cost=0.00..25.55 rows=1 width=32) (actual time=0.004..0.004
rows=0 loops=1)
Join Filter: (x.p2 = y.p2)
-> Seq Scan on test1hashtable826 y (cost=0.00..12.75 rows=1 width=32)
(actual time=0.002..0.002 rows=0 loops=1)
Filter: (p1 = '1'::text)
-> Append (cost=0.00..12.78 rows=2 width=64) (never executed)
-> Seq Scan on test1hashtable826 x (cost=0.00..12.75 rows=1
width=64) (never executed)
Filter: (p1 = '1'::text)
-> Result (cost=0.00..0.01 rows=1 width=64) (never executed)
Planning Time: 0.158 ms
Execution Time: 0.022 ms
(10 rows)
But when the second one runs, the planning time reaches 13.942ms.
The plan:
postgres=# explain analyze
postgres-# select
postgres-# y.p1,
postgres-# (Select x.p2 from test1.test1hashtable x where y.p1 =x.p1 and
y.p2=x.p2) as b
postgres-# from test1.test1hashtable y where p1 = '1' and p2 = '1';
QUERY PLAN
--
Seq Scan on test1hashtable826 y (cost=0.00..13318.30 rows=1 width=64)
(actual time=0.004..0.047 rows=0 loops=1)
Filter: ((p1 = '1'::text) AND (p2 = '1'::text))
SubPlan 1
-> Append (cost=0.00..13305.00 rows=1000 width=32) (never executed)
-> Seq Scan on test1hashtable1 x_1 (cost=0.00..13.30 rows=1
width=32) (never executed)
Filter: ((y.p1 = p1) AND (y.p2 = p2))
-> Seq Scan on test1hashtable1000 x_1000 (cost=0.00..13.30
rows=1 width=32) (never executed)
Filter: ((y.p1 = p1) AND (y.p2 = p2))
Planning Time: 13.942 ms
Execution Time: 4.899 ms
(2006 rows)
This is a very worthwhile thing to do. In a relatively large business
system, a large number of partition tables and high concurrency are often
used. If the planning time is too long, this will greatly affect the
business.
regards,
Shawn.
Wenjing 于2021年8月17日周二 上午10:31写道：
>
>
> 2021年8月16日 17:15，Wenjing 写道：
>
> Hi Hackers,
>
> Recently, a issue has been bothering me, This is about conditional
> push-down in SQL.
> I use cases from regression testing as an example.
> I found that the conditions (B =1) can be pushed down into the
> subquery, However, it cannot be pushed down to sublink/subplan.
> If a sublink/subplan clause contains a partition table, it can be useful
> to get the conditions for pruning.
> So, is it worth pushing conditions to sublink/subplan?
> Anybody have any ideas?
>
>
> regards,
> Wenjing
>
>
> example:
> create table p (a int, b int, c int) partition by list (a);
> create table p1 partition of p for values in (1);
> create table p2 partition of p for values in (2);
> create table q (a int, b int, c int) partition by list (a);
> create table q1 partition of q for values in (1) partition by list (b);
> create table q11 partition of q1 for values in (1) partition by list (c);
> create table q111 partition of q11 for values in (1);
> create table q2 partition of q for values in (2) partition by list (b);
> create table q21 partition of q2 for values in (1);
> create table q22 partition of q2 for values in (2);
> insert into q22 values (2, 2, 3);
>
> Sorry, I messed up the structure of the table.
> It is should be:
> create table ab (a int not null, b int not null) partition by list (a);
> create table ab_a2 partition of ab for values in(2) partition by list (b);
> create table ab_a2_b1 partition of ab_a2 for values in (1);
> create table ab_a2_b2 partition of ab_a2 for values in (2);
> create table ab_a2_b3 partition of ab_a2 for values in (3);
> create table ab_a1 partition of ab for values in(1) partition by list (b);
> create table ab_a1_b1 partition of ab_a1 for values in (1);
> create table ab_a1_b2 partition of ab_a1 for values in (2);
> create table ab_a1_b3 partition of ab_a1 for values in (3);
> create table ab_a3 partition of ab for values in(3) partition by list (b);
> create table ab_a3_b1 partition of ab_a3 for values in (1);
> create table ab_a3_b2 partition of ab_a3
Re: Is it worth pushing conditions to sublink/subplan?
Indeed, this may be useful for partition pruning. I am also curious about why this has not been achieved. Wenjing 于2021年8月23日周一 上午10:46写道： > Hi Hackers, > > Recently, a issue has been bothering me, This is about conditional > push-down in SQL. > I use cases from regression testing as an example. > I found that the conditions (B =1) can be pushed down into the > subquery, However, it cannot be pushed down to sublink/subplan. > If a sublink/subplan clause contains a partition table, it can be useful > to get the conditions for pruning. > So, is it worth pushing conditions to sublink/subplan? > Anybody have any ideas? > > > regards, > Wenjing > > > example: > create table p (a int, b int, c int) partition by list (a); > create table p1 partition of p for values in (1); > create table p2 partition of p for values in (2); > create table q (a int, b int, c int) partition by list (a); > create table q1 partition of q for values in (1) partition by list (b); > create table q11 partition of q1 for values in (1) partition by list (c); > create table q111 partition of q11 for values in (1); > create table q2 partition of q for values in (2) partition by list (b); > create table q21 partition of q2 for values in (1); > create table q22 partition of q2 for values in (2); > insert into q22 values (2, 2, 3); > > > postgres-# explain (costs off) > postgres-# select temp.b from > postgres-# ( > postgres(# select a,b from ab x where x.a = 1 > postgres(# union all > postgres(# (values(1,1)) > postgres(# ) temp, > postgres-# ab y > postgres-# where y.b = temp.b and y.a = 1 and y.b=1; > QUERY PLAN > --- > Nested Loop >-> Seq Scan on ab_a1_b1 y > Filter: ((b = 1) AND (a = 1)) >-> Append > -> Subquery Scan on "*SELECT* 1" >-> Seq Scan on ab_a1_b1 x > Filter: ((a = 1) AND (b = 1)) > -> Result > (8 rows) > > The conditions (B =1) can be pushed down into the subquery. > > postgres=# explain (costs off) > postgres-# select > postgres-# y.a, > postgres-# (Select x.b from ab x where y.a =x.a and y.b=x.b) as b > postgres-# from ab y where a = 1 and b = 1; > QUERY PLAN > --- > Seq Scan on ab_a1_b1 y >Filter: ((a = 1) AND (b = 1)) >SubPlan 1 > -> Append >-> Seq Scan on ab_a1_b1 x_1 > Filter: ((y.a = a) AND (y.b = b)) >-> Seq Scan on ab_a1_b2 x_2 > Filter: ((y.a = a) AND (y.b = b)) >-> Seq Scan on ab_a1_b3 x_3 > Filter: ((y.a = a) AND (y.b = b)) >-> Seq Scan on ab_a2_b1 x_4 > Filter: ((y.a = a) AND (y.b = b)) >-> Seq Scan on ab_a2_b2 x_5 > Filter: ((y.a = a) AND (y.b = b)) >-> Seq Scan on ab_a2_b3 x_6 > Filter: ((y.a = a) AND (y.b = b)) >-> Seq Scan on ab_a3_b1 x_7 > Filter: ((y.a = a) AND (y.b = b)) >-> Seq Scan on ab_a3_b2 x_8 > Filter: ((y.a = a) AND (y.b = b)) >-> Seq Scan on ab_a3_b3 x_9 > Filter: ((y.a = a) AND (y.b = b)) > (22 rows) > > The conditions (B = 1 and A = 1) cannot be pushed down to sublink/subplan > in targetlist. > > postgres=# explain (costs off) > postgres-# select y.a > postgres-# from ab y > postgres-# where > postgres-# (select x.a > x.b from ab x where y.a =x.a and y.b=x.b) and > postgres-# y.a = 1 and y.b = 1; > QUERY PLAN > --- > Seq Scan on ab_a1_b1 y >Filter: ((a = 1) AND (b = 1) AND (SubPlan 1)) >SubPlan 1 > -> Append >-> Seq Scan on ab_a1_b1 x_1 > Filter: ((y.a = a) AND (y.b = b)) >-> Seq Scan on ab_a1_b2 x_2 > Filter: ((y.a = a) AND (y.b = b)) >-> Seq Scan on ab_a1_b3 x_3 > Filter: ((y.a = a) AND (y.b = b)) >-> Seq Scan on ab_a2_b1 x_4 > Filter: ((y.a = a) AND (y.b = b)) >-> Seq Scan on ab_a2_b2 x_5 > Filter: ((y.a = a) AND (y.b = b)) >-> Seq Scan on ab_a2_b3 x_6 > Filter: ((y.a = a) AND (y.b = b)) >-> Seq Scan on ab_a3_b1 x_7 > Filter: ((y.a = a) AND (y.b = b)) >-> Seq Scan on ab_a3_b2 x_8 > Filter: ((y.a = a) AND (y.b = b)) >-> Seq Scan on ab_a3_b3 x_9 > Filter: ((y.a = a) AND (y.b = b)) > (22 rows) > > The conditions (B=1 and A=1) cannot be pushed down to sublink/subplan in > where clause. > > > >
Re: Is it worth pushing conditions to sublink/subplan?
> 2021年8月16日 17:15，Wenjing 写道： > > Hi Hackers, > > Recently, a issue has been bothering me, This is about conditional push-down > in SQL. > I use cases from regression testing as an example. > I found that the conditions (B =1) can be pushed down into the subquery, > However, it cannot be pushed down to sublink/subplan. > If a sublink/subplan clause contains a partition table, it can be useful to > get the conditions for pruning. > So, is it worth pushing conditions to sublink/subplan? > Anybody have any ideas? > > > regards, > Wenjing > > > example: > create table p (a int, b int, c int) partition by list (a); > create table p1 partition of p for values in (1); > create table p2 partition of p for values in (2); > create table q (a int, b int, c int) partition by list (a); > create table q1 partition of q for values in (1) partition by list (b); > create table q11 partition of q1 for values in (1) partition by list (c); > create table q111 partition of q11 for values in (1); > create table q2 partition of q for values in (2) partition by list (b); > create table q21 partition of q2 for values in (1); > create table q22 partition of q2 for values in (2); > insert into q22 values (2, 2, 3); Sorry, I messed up the structure of the table. It is should be: create table ab (a int not null, b int not null) partition by list (a); create table ab_a2 partition of ab for values in(2) partition by list (b); create table ab_a2_b1 partition of ab_a2 for values in (1); create table ab_a2_b2 partition of ab_a2 for values in (2); create table ab_a2_b3 partition of ab_a2 for values in (3); create table ab_a1 partition of ab for values in(1) partition by list (b); create table ab_a1_b1 partition of ab_a1 for values in (1); create table ab_a1_b2 partition of ab_a1 for values in (2); create table ab_a1_b3 partition of ab_a1 for values in (3); create table ab_a3 partition of ab for values in(3) partition by list (b); create table ab_a3_b1 partition of ab_a3 for values in (1); create table ab_a3_b2 partition of ab_a3 for values in (2); create table ab_a3_b3 partition of ab_a3 for values in (3); > > > postgres-# explain (costs off) > postgres-# select temp.b from > postgres-# ( > postgres(# select a,b from ab x where x.a = 1 > postgres(# union all > postgres(# (values(1,1)) > postgres(# ) temp, > postgres-# ab y > postgres-# where y.b = temp.b and y.a = 1 and y.b=1; > QUERY PLAN > --- > Nested Loop >-> Seq Scan on ab_a1_b1 y > Filter: ((b = 1) AND (a = 1)) >-> Append > -> Subquery Scan on "*SELECT* 1" >-> Seq Scan on ab_a1_b1 x > Filter: ((a = 1) AND (b = 1)) > -> Result > (8 rows) > > The conditions (B =1) can be pushed down into the subquery. > > postgres=# explain (costs off) > postgres-# select > postgres-# y.a, > postgres-# (Select x.b from ab x where y.a =x.a and y.b=x.b) as b > postgres-# from ab y where a = 1 and b = 1; > QUERY PLAN > --- > Seq Scan on ab_a1_b1 y >Filter: ((a = 1) AND (b = 1)) >SubPlan 1 > -> Append >-> Seq Scan on ab_a1_b1 x_1 > Filter: ((y.a = a) AND (y.b = b)) >-> Seq Scan on ab_a1_b2 x_2 > Filter: ((y.a = a) AND (y.b = b)) >-> Seq Scan on ab_a1_b3 x_3 > Filter: ((y.a = a) AND (y.b = b)) >-> Seq Scan on ab_a2_b1 x_4 > Filter: ((y.a = a) AND (y.b = b)) >-> Seq Scan on ab_a2_b2 x_5 > Filter: ((y.a = a) AND (y.b = b)) >-> Seq Scan on ab_a2_b3 x_6 > Filter: ((y.a = a) AND (y.b = b)) >-> Seq Scan on ab_a3_b1 x_7 > Filter: ((y.a = a) AND (y.b = b)) >-> Seq Scan on ab_a3_b2 x_8 > Filter: ((y.a = a) AND (y.b = b)) >-> Seq Scan on ab_a3_b3 x_9 > Filter: ((y.a = a) AND (y.b = b)) > (22 rows) > > The conditions (B = 1 and A = 1) cannot be pushed down to sublink/subplan in > targetlist. > > postgres=# explain (costs off) > postgres-# select y.a > postgres-# from ab y > postgres-# where > postgres-# (select x.a > x.b from ab x where y.a =x.a and y.b=x.b) and > postgres-# y.a = 1 and y.b = 1; > QUERY PLAN > --- > Seq Scan on ab_a1_b1 y >Filter: ((a = 1) AND (b = 1) AND (SubPlan 1)) >SubPlan 1 >
Is it worth pushing conditions to sublink/subplan?
Hi Hackers, Recently, a issue has been bothering me, This is about conditional push-down in SQL. I use cases from regression testing as an example. I found that the conditions (B =1) can be pushed down into the subquery, However, it cannot be pushed down to sublink/subplan. If a sublink/subplan clause contains a partition table, it can be useful to get the conditions for pruning. So, is it worth pushing conditions to sublink/subplan? Anybody have any ideas? regards, Wenjing example: create table p (a int, b int, c int) partition by list (a); create table p1 partition of p for values in (1); create table p2 partition of p for values in (2); create table q (a int, b int, c int) partition by list (a); create table q1 partition of q for values in (1) partition by list (b); create table q11 partition of q1 for values in (1) partition by list (c); create table q111 partition of q11 for values in (1); create table q2 partition of q for values in (2) partition by list (b); create table q21 partition of q2 for values in (1); create table q22 partition of q2 for values in (2); insert into q22 values (2, 2, 3); postgres-# explain (costs off) postgres-# select temp.b from postgres-# ( postgres(# select a,b from ab x where x.a = 1 postgres(# union all postgres(# (values(1,1)) postgres(# ) temp, postgres-# ab y postgres-# where y.b = temp.b and y.a = 1 and y.b=1; QUERY PLAN --- Nested Loop -> Seq Scan on ab_a1_b1 y Filter: ((b = 1) AND (a = 1)) -> Append -> Subquery Scan on "*SELECT* 1" -> Seq Scan on ab_a1_b1 x Filter: ((a = 1) AND (b = 1)) -> Result (8 rows) The conditions (B =1) can be pushed down into the subquery. postgres=# explain (costs off) postgres-# select postgres-# y.a, postgres-# (Select x.b from ab x where y.a =x.a and y.b=x.b) as b postgres-# from ab y where a = 1 and b = 1; QUERY PLAN --- Seq Scan on ab_a1_b1 y Filter: ((a = 1) AND (b = 1)) SubPlan 1 -> Append -> Seq Scan on ab_a1_b1 x_1 Filter: ((y.a = a) AND (y.b = b)) -> Seq Scan on ab_a1_b2 x_2 Filter: ((y.a = a) AND (y.b = b)) -> Seq Scan on ab_a1_b3 x_3 Filter: ((y.a = a) AND (y.b = b)) -> Seq Scan on ab_a2_b1 x_4 Filter: ((y.a = a) AND (y.b = b)) -> Seq Scan on ab_a2_b2 x_5 Filter: ((y.a = a) AND (y.b = b)) -> Seq Scan on ab_a2_b3 x_6 Filter: ((y.a = a) AND (y.b = b)) -> Seq Scan on ab_a3_b1 x_7 Filter: ((y.a = a) AND (y.b = b)) -> Seq Scan on ab_a3_b2 x_8 Filter: ((y.a = a) AND (y.b = b)) -> Seq Scan on ab_a3_b3 x_9 Filter: ((y.a = a) AND (y.b = b)) (22 rows) The conditions (B = 1 and A = 1) cannot be pushed down to sublink/subplan in targetlist. postgres=# explain (costs off) postgres-# select y.a postgres-# from ab y postgres-# where postgres-# (select x.a > x.b from ab x where y.a =x.a and y.b=x.b) and postgres-# y.a = 1 and y.b = 1; QUERY PLAN --- Seq Scan on ab_a1_b1 y Filter: ((a = 1) AND (b = 1) AND (SubPlan 1)) SubPlan 1 -> Append -> Seq Scan on ab_a1_b1 x_1 Filter: ((y.a = a) AND (y.b = b)) -> Seq Scan on ab_a1_b2 x_2 Filter: ((y.a = a) AND (y.b = b)) -> Seq Scan on ab_a1_b3 x_3 Filter: ((y.a = a) AND (y.b = b)) -> Seq Scan on ab_a2_b1 x_4 Filter: ((y.a = a) AND (y.b = b)) -> Seq Scan on ab_a2_b2 x_5 Filter: ((y.a = a) AND (y.b = b)) -> Seq Scan on ab_a2_b3 x_6 Filter: ((y.a = a) AND (y.b = b)) -> Seq Scan on ab_a3_b1 x_7 Filter: ((y.a = a) AND (y.b = b)) -> Seq Scan on ab_a3_b2 x_8 Filter: ((y.a = a) AND (y.b = b)) -> Seq Scan on ab_a3_b3 x_9 Filter: ((y.a = a) AND (y.b = b)) (22 rows) The conditions (B=1 and A=1) cannot be pushed down to sublink/subplan in where clause. smime.p7s Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature
