mirrors/postgres
1
0
Fork 0
Code Issues Pull Requests Packages Projects Releases Wiki Activity

Fix choose_bitmap_and() so that partial index predicates are considered when

Browse Source 
deciding whether a potential additional indexscan is redundant or not.  As now
coded, any use of a partial index that was already used in a previous AND arm
will be rejected as redundant.  This might be overly restrictive, but not
considering the point at all is definitely bad, as per example in bug #2441
from Arjen van der Meijden.  In particular, a clauseless scan of a partial
index was *never* considered redundant by the previous coding, and that's
surely wrong.  Being more flexible would also require some consideration
of how not to double-count the index predicate's selectivity.
This commit is contained in:
Tom Lane 2006-05-18 19:56:46 +00:00
parent f323252642
commit eed57b1b92
1 changed files with 10 additions and 9 deletions
Show Stats Download Patch File Download Diff File Expand all files Collapse all files

19
src/backend/optimizer/path/indxpath.c
View File

@ -9,7 +9,7 @@
*
*
* IDENTIFICATION
* $PostgreSQL: pgsql/src/backend/optimizer/path/indxpath.c,v 1.205 2006/05/18 17:12:10 tgl Exp $
* $PostgreSQL: pgsql/src/backend/optimizer/path/indxpath.c,v 1.206 2006/05/18 19:56:46 tgl Exp $
*
*-------------------------------------------------------------------------
*/
@ -616,10 +616,10 @@ choose_bitmap_and(PlannerInfo *root, RelOptInfo *rel, List *paths)
* non-selective. In any case, we'd surely be drastically misestimating
* the selectivity if we count the same condition twice.
*
* XXX is there any risk of throwing away a useful partial index here
* because we don't explicitly look at indpred? At least in simple cases,
* the partial index will sort before competing non-partial indexes and so
* it makes the right choice, but perhaps we need to work harder.
* We include index predicate conditions in the redundancy test. Because
* the test is just for pointer equality and not equal(), the effect is
* that use of the same partial index in two different AND elements is
* considered redundant. (XXX is this too strong?)
*
* Note: outputting the selected sub-paths in selectivity order is a good
* thing even if we weren't using that as part of the selection method,
@ -732,14 +732,14 @@ bitmap_and_cost_est(PlannerInfo *root, RelOptInfo *rel, List *paths)
/*
* pull_indexpath_quals
*
* Given the Path structure for a plain or bitmap indexscan, extract a
* list of RestrictInfo nodes for all the indexquals used in the Path.
* Given the Path structure for a plain or bitmap indexscan, extract a list
* of all the indexquals and index predicate conditions used in the Path.
*
* This is sort of a simplified version of make_restrictinfo_from_bitmapqual;
* here, we are not trying to produce an accurate representation of the AND/OR
* semantics of the Path, but just find out all the base conditions used.
*
* The result list contains pointers to the RestrictInfos used in the Path,
* The result list contains pointers to the expressions used in the Path,
* but all the list cells are freshly built, so it's safe to destructively
* modify the list (eg, by concat'ing it with other lists).
*/
@ -777,7 +777,8 @@ pull_indexpath_quals(Path *bitmapqual)
{
IndexPath *ipath = (IndexPath *) bitmapqual;
result = list_copy(ipath->indexclauses);
result = get_actual_clauses(ipath->indexclauses);
result = list_concat(result, list_copy(ipath->indexinfo->indpred));
}
else
elog(ERROR, "unrecognized node type: %d", nodeTag(bitmapqual));