Re: A new strategy for pull-up correlated ANY_SUBLINK

It seems to me that the expressions "=" and "IN" are equivalent here due to the fact that the aggregated subquery returns only one value, and the result with the "IN" operation can be considered as the intersection of elements on the left and right. In this query, we have some kind of set on the left, among which there will be found or not only one element on the right.

Yes, they are equivalent at the final result, but there are some 

differences at the execution level.  the '=' case will be transformed

to a Subplan whose subPlanType is EXPR_SUBLINK, so if there

is more than 1 rows is returned in the subplan, error will be raised.

select * from tenk1 where
  ten =  (select ten from tenk1 i where i.two = tenk1.two );

ERROR:  more than one row returned by a subquery used as an expression

However the IN case would not. 

select * from tenk1 where
  ten =  (select ten from tenk1 i where i.two = tenk1.two ) is OK.

I think the test case you added is not related to this feature. the 

difference is there even without the patch.  so I kept the code

you changed, but not for the test  case.

Yes, I understand and agree with you that we should delete the last queries, except to one.

The query below have a different result compared to master, and it is correct.

Without your patch:

explain (costs off)
+SELECT * FROM tenk1 A LEFT JOIN tenk2 B
ON B.hundred in (SELECT min(c.hundred) FROM tenk2 C WHERE c.odd = b.odd);
                                 QUERY PLAN                                  
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
 Nested Loop Left Join
   ->  Seq Scan on tenk1 a
   ->  Materialize
         ->  Seq Scan on tenk2 b
               Filter: (SubPlan 2)
               SubPlan 2
                 ->  Result
                       InitPlan 1 (returns $1)
                         ->  Limit
                               ->  Index Scan using tenk2_hundred on tenk2 c
                                     Index Cond: (hundred IS NOT NULL)
                                     Filter: (odd = b.odd)
(12 rows)


After your patch:

postgres=# explain (costs off)
SELECT * FROM tenk1 A LEFT JOIN tenk2 B
ON B.hundred in (SELECT min(c.hundred) FROM tenk2 C WHERE c.odd = b.odd);

                           QUERY PLAN
--------------------------------------------------------------
  Nested Loop Left Join
    ->  Seq Scan on tenk1 a
    ->  Materialize
          ->  Nested Loop
                ->  Seq Scan on tenk2 b
                ->  Subquery Scan on "ANY_subquery"
                      Filter: (b.hundred = "ANY_subquery".min)
                      ->  Aggregate
                            ->  Seq Scan on tenk2 c
                                  Filter: (odd = b.odd)
(10 rows)

I took the liberty of adding this to your patch and added myself as reviewer, if you don't mind.

Sure, the patch after your modification looks better than the original. 

I'm not sure how the test case around "because of got one row" is

relevant to the current changes.  After we reach to some agreement

on the above discussion, I think v4 is good for committer to review!

Thank you!) I am ready to discuss it.

 

Actually I meant to discuss the "Unfortunately, I found a request..", looks

we have reached an agreement there:) 

Yes, we have)

-- 
Regards,
Alena Rybakina