Обсуждение: POC, WIP: OR-clause support for indexes

I'd like to present OR-clause support for indexes. Although OR-clauses could be
supported by bitmapOR index scan it isn't very effective and such scan lost any
order existing in index. We (with Alexander Korotkov) presented results on
Vienna's conference this year. In short, it provides performance improvement:

EXPLAIN ANALYZE
SELECT count(*) FROM tst WHERE id = 5 OR id = 500 OR id = 5000;
me=0.080..0.267 rows=173 loops=1)
          Recheck Cond: ((id = 5) OR (id = 500) OR (id = 5000))
          Heap Blocks: exact=172
          ->  Bitmap Index Scan on idx_gin  (cost=0.00..57.50 rows=15000
width=0) (actual time=0.059..0.059 rows=147 loops=1)
                Index Cond: ((id = 5) OR (id = 500) OR (id = 5000))
  Planning time: 0.077 ms
  Execution time: 0.308 ms   <-------
                                                             QUERY PLAN


-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
  Aggregate  (cost=51180.53..51180.54 rows=1 width=0) (actual
time=796.766..796.766 rows=1 loops=1)
    ->  Index Only Scan using idx_btree on tst  (cost=0.42..51180.40 rows=55
width=0) (actual time=0.444..796.736 rows=173 loops=1)
          Filter: ((id = 5) OR (id = 500) OR (id = 5000))
          Rows Removed by Filter: 999829
          Heap Fetches: 1000002
  Planning time: 0.087 ms
  Execution time: 796.798 ms  <------
                                                 QUERY PLAN

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
  Aggregate  (cost=21925.63..21925.64 rows=1 width=0) (actual
time=160.412..160.412 rows=1 loops=1)
    ->  Seq Scan on tst  (cost=0.00..21925.03 rows=237 width=0) (actual
time=0.535..160.362 rows=175 loops=1)
          Filter: ((id = 5) OR (id = 500) OR (id = 5000))
          Rows Removed by Filter: 999827
  Planning time: 0.459 ms
  Execution time: 160.451 ms


It also could work together with KNN feature of GiST and in this case
performance improvement could be up to several orders of magnitude, in
artificial example it was 37000 times faster.

Not all  indexes can support oR-clause, patch adds support to GIN, GiST and BRIN
indexes. pg_am table is extended for adding amcanorclause column which indicates
possibility of executing of OR-clause by index.

  indexqual and indexqualorig doesn't contain implicitly-ANDed list of index
qual expressions, now that lists could contain OR RestrictionInfo. Actually, the
patch just tries to convert BitmapOr node to IndexScan or IndexOnlyScan. Thats
significantly simplifies logic to find possible clause's list for index.
Index always gets a array of ScanKey but for indexes which support OR-clauses
array  of ScanKey is actually exection tree in reversed polish notation form.
Transformation is done in ExecInitIndexScan().

The problems on the way which I see for now:
1 Calculating cost. Right now it's just a simple transformation of costs
computed for BitmapOr path. I'd like to hope that's possible and so index's
estimation function could be non-touched. So, they could believe that all
clauses are implicitly-ANDed
2 I'd like to add such support to btree but it seems that it should be a
separated patch. Btree search algorithm doesn't use any kind of stack of pages
and algorithm to walk over btree doesn't clear for me for now.
3 I could miss some places which still assumes  implicitly-ANDed list of clauses
although regression tests passes fine.

Hope, hackers will not have an strong objections to do that. But obviously patch
requires further work and I'd like to see comments, suggestions and
recommendations. Thank you.


--
Teodor Sigaev                                   E-mail: teodor@sigaev.ru
                                                    WWW: http://www.sigaev.ru/

> This is great.   I got a question, is it possible make btree index to support OR
> as well?  Is btree supports more invasive, in the sense that we need to do
> enhance ScanKey to supports an array of values?
Btree now works by follow: find the max/min tuple which satisfies condtions and 
then executes forward/backward scan over leaf pages. For complicated clauses 
it's not obvious how to find min/max tuple. Scanning whole index isn't an option 
from preformance point of view.

-- 
Teodor Sigaev                                   E-mail: teodor@sigaev.ru
  WWW: http://www.sigaev.ru/
 

I think this is very exciting stuff, but since you didn't submit an
updated patch after David's review, I'm closing it for now as
returned-with-feedback.  Please submit a new version once you have it.

-- 
Álvaro Herrera                http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services

Thank you for review!

> I'd like to see comments too! but more so in the code. :) I've had a look over
> this, and it seems like a great area in which we could improve on, and your
> reported performance improvements are certainly very interesting too. However
> I'm finding the code rather hard to follow, which might be a combination of my
> lack of familiarity with the index code, but more likely it's the lack of
I've added comments, fixed a found bugs.


> comments to explain what's going on. Let's just take 1 function as an example:
>
> Here there's not a single comment, so I'm just going to try to work out what's
> going on based on the code.
>
> +static void
> +compileScanKeys(IndexScanDesc scan)
> +{
> +GISTScanOpaqueso = (GISTScanOpaque) scan->opaque;
> +int*stack,
> +stackPos = -1,
> +i;
> +
> +if (scan->numberOfKeys <= 1 || so->useExec == false)
> +return;
> +
> +Assert(scan->numberOfKeys >=3);
>
> Why can numberOfKeys never be 2? I looked at what calls this and I can't really
Because here they are actually an expression, expression could contain 1 or tree
or more nodes but could not two (operation AND/OR plus two arguments)

> work it out. I'm really also not sure what useExec means as there's no comment
fixed. If useExec == false then SkanKeys are implicitly ANDed and stored in just
array.

> in that struct member, and what if numberOfKeys == 1 and useExec == false, won't
> this Assert() fail? If that's not a possible situation then why not?
fixed




> +ScanKey     key = scan->keyData + i;
> Is there a reason not to use keyData[i]; ?
That's the same ScanKey    key = &scan->keyData[i];
I prefer first form as more clear but I could be wrong - but there are other
places in code where pointer arithmetic is used.

> +if (stackPos >= 0 && (key->sk_flags & (SK_OR | SK_AND)))
> +{
> +Assert(stackPos >= 1 && stackPos < scan->numberOfKeys);
> stackPos >= 1? This seems unnecessary and confusing as the if test surely makes
> that impossible.


> +
> +so->leftArgs[i] = stack[stackPos - 1];
> Something is broken here as stackPos can be 0 (going by the if() not the
> Assert()), therefore that's stack[-1].
fixed

> stackPos is initialised to -1, so this appears to always skip the first element
> of the keyData array. If that's really the intention, then wouldn't it be better
> to just make the initial condition of the for() look i = 1 ?
done

> I'd like to review more, but it feels like a job that's more difficult than it
> needs to be due to lack of comments.
>
> Would it be possible to update the patch to try and explain things a little better?
Hope, I made cleaner..


--
Teodor Sigaev                                   E-mail: teodor@sigaev.ru
                                                    WWW: http://www.sigaev.ru/

Hi Teodor,


I've looked into v2 of the patch you sent a few days ago. Firstly, I
definitely agree that being able to use OR conditions with an index is
definitely a cool idea.

I do however agree with David that the patch would definitely benefit
from comments documenting various bits that are less obvious to mere
mortals like me, with limited knowledge of the index internals.

I also wonder whether the patch should add explanation of OR-clauses
handling into the READMEs in src/backend/access/*

The patch would probably benefit from transforming it into a patch
series - one patch for the infrastructure shared by all the indexes,
then one patch per index type. That should make it easier to review, and
I seriously doubt we'd want to commit this in one huge chunk anyway.

Now, some review comments from eyeballing the patch. Some of those are
nitpicking, but well ...

1) fields in BrinOpaque are not following the naming convention (all the
existing fields start with bo_)

2) there's plenty of places violating the usual code style (e.g. for
single-command if branches) - not a big deal for WIP patch, but needs to
get fixed eventually

3) I wonder whether we really need both SK_OR and SK_AND, considering
they are mutually exclusive. Why not to assume SK_AND by default, and
only use SK_OR? If we really need them, perhaps an assert making sure
they are not set at the same time would be appropriate.

4) scanGetItem is a prime example of the "badly needs comments" issue,
particularly because the previous version of the function actually had
quite a lot of them while the new function has none.

5) scanGetItem() may end up using uninitialized 'cmp' - it only gets
initialized when (!leftFinished && !rightFinished), but then gets used
when either part of the condition evaluates to true. Probably should be
   if (!leftFinished || !rightFinished)       cmp = ...

6) the code in nodeIndexscan.c should not include call to abort()
   {       abort();       elog(ERROR, "unsupported indexqual type: %d",           (int) nodeTag(clause));   }

7) I find it rather ugly that the paths are built by converting BitmapOr
paths. Firstly, it means indexes without amgetbitmap can't benefit from
this change. Maybe that's reasonable limitation, though?

But more importantly, this design already has a bunch of unintended
consequences. For example, the current code completely ignores
enable_indexscan setting, because it merely copies the costs from the
bitmap path.
   SET enable_indexscan = off;   EXPLAIN SELECT * FROM t WHERE (c && ARRAY[1] OR c && ARRAY[2]);
                            QUERY PLAN
-------------------------------------------------------------------Index Scan using t_c_idx on t  (cost=0.00..4.29
rows=0width=33)  Index Cond: ((c && '{1}'::integer[]) OR (c && '{2}'::integer[]))
 
(2 rows)

That's pretty dubious, I guess. So this code probably needs to be made
aware of enable_indexscan - right now it entirely ignores startup_cost
in convert_bitmap_path_to_index_clause(). But of course if there are
multiple IndexPaths, the  enable_indexscan=off will be included multiple
times.

9) This already breaks estimation for some reason. Consider this
example, using a table with int[] column, with gist index built using
intarray:

EXPLAIN SELECT * FROM t WHERE (c && ARRAY[1,2,3,4,5,6,7]);
                          QUERY PLAN
--------------------------------------------------------------------Index Scan using t_c_idx on t  (cost=0.28..52.48
rows=12width=33)  Index Cond: (c && '{1,2,3,4,5,6,7}'::integer[])
 
(2 rows)

EXPLAIN SELECT * FROM t WHERE (c && ARRAY[8,9,10,11,12,13,14]);
                          QUERY PLAN
--------------------------------------------------------------------Index Scan using t_c_idx on t  (cost=0.28..44.45
rows=10width=33)  Index Cond: (c && '{8,9,10,11,12,13,14}'::integer[])
 
(2 rows)

EXPLAIN SELECT * FROM t WHERE (c && ARRAY[1,2,3,4,5,6,7])                          OR (c &&
ARRAY[8,9,10,11,12,13,14]);
                          QUERY PLAN
--------------------------------------------------------------------Index Scan using t_c_idx on t  (cost=0.00..4.37
rows=0width=33)  Index Cond: ((c && '{1,2,3,4,5,6,7}'::integer[])            OR (c &&
'{8,9,10,11,12,13,14}'::integer[]))
(2 rows)

So the OR-clause is estimated to match 0 rows, less than each of the
clauses independently. Needless to say that without the patch this works
just fine.

10) Also, this already breaks some regression tests, apparently because
it changes how 'width' is computed.

So I think this way of building the index path from a BitmapOr path is
pretty much a dead-end.


regards

-- 
Tomas Vondra                  http://www.2ndQuadrant.com
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services

> I also wonder whether the patch should add explanation of OR-clauses
> handling into the READMEs in src/backend/access/*

Oops, will add shortly.
>
> The patch would probably benefit from transforming it into a patch
> series - one patch for the infrastructure shared by all the indexes,
> then one patch per index type. That should make it easier to review, and
> I seriously doubt we'd want to commit this in one huge chunk anyway.
Ok, will do it.

> 1) fields in BrinOpaque are not following the naming convention (all the
> existing fields start with bo_)
fixed

>
> 2) there's plenty of places violating the usual code style (e.g. for
> single-command if branches) - not a big deal for WIP patch, but needs to
> get fixed eventually
hope, fixed

>
> 3) I wonder whether we really need both SK_OR and SK_AND, considering
> they are mutually exclusive. Why not to assume SK_AND by default, and
> only use SK_OR? If we really need them, perhaps an assert making sure
> they are not set at the same time would be appropriate.
In short: possible ambiguity and increasing stack machine complexity.
Let we have follow expression in reversed polish notation (letters represent a
condtion, | - OR, & - AND logical operation, ANDs are omitted):
a b c |

Is it ((a & b)| c) or (a & (b | c)) ?

Also, using both SK_ makes code more readable.


> 4) scanGetItem is a prime example of the "badly needs comments" issue,
> particularly because the previous version of the function actually had
> quite a lot of them while the new function has none.
Will add soon

>
> 5) scanGetItem() may end up using uninitialized 'cmp' - it only gets
> initialized when (!leftFinished && !rightFinished), but then gets used
> when either part of the condition evaluates to true. Probably should be
>
>      if (!leftFinished || !rightFinished)
>          cmp = ...
fixed

>
> 6) the code in nodeIndexscan.c should not include call to abort()
>
>      {
>          abort();
>          elog(ERROR, "unsupported indexqual type: %d",
>              (int) nodeTag(clause));
>      }
fixed, just forgot to remove

>
> 7) I find it rather ugly that the paths are built by converting BitmapOr
> paths. Firstly, it means indexes without amgetbitmap can't benefit from
> this change. Maybe that's reasonable limitation, though?
I based on following thoughts:
1 code which tries to find OR-index path will be very similar to existing
   generate_or_bitmap code. Obviously, it should not be duplicated.
2 all existsing indexes have amgetbitmap method, only a few don't. amgetbitmap
   interface is simpler. Anyway, I can add an option for generate_or_bitmap
   to use any index, but, in current state it will just repeat all work.

>
> But more importantly, this design already has a bunch of unintended
> consequences. For example, the current code completely ignores
> enable_indexscan setting, because it merely copies the costs from the
> bitmap path.
I'd like to add separate enable_indexorscan

> That's pretty dubious, I guess. So this code probably needs to be made
> aware of enable_indexscan - right now it entirely ignores startup_cost
> in convert_bitmap_path_to_index_clause(). But of course if there are
> multiple IndexPaths, the  enable_indexscan=off will be included multiple
> times.
>
> 9) This already breaks estimation for some reason. Consider this
...
> So the OR-clause is estimated to match 0 rows, less than each of the
> clauses independently. Needless to say that without the patch this works
> just fine.
fixed

>
> 10) Also, this already breaks some regression tests, apparently because
> it changes how 'width' is computed.
fixed too


> So I think this way of building the index path from a BitmapOr path is
> pretty much a dead-end.
I don't think so because separate code path to support OR-clause in index will
significanlty duplicate BitmapOr generator.

Will send next version as soon as possible. Thank you for your attention!

--
Teodor Sigaev                                   E-mail: teodor@sigaev.ru
                                                    WWW: http://www.sigaev.ru/

> I also wonder whether the patch should add explanation of OR-clauses
> handling into the READMEs in src/backend/access/*
Not yet, but will

> The patch would probably benefit from transforming it into a patch
> series - one patch for the infrastructure shared by all the indexes,
> then one patch per index type. That should make it easier to review, and
> I seriously doubt we'd want to commit this in one huge chunk anyway.
I splitted to two:
1 0001-idx_or_core - only planner and executor changes
2 0002-idx_or_indexes - BRIN/GIN/GiST changes with tests

I don't think that splitting of second patch adds readability but increase
management diffculties, but if your insist I will split.

> 4) scanGetItem is a prime example of the "badly needs comments" issue,
> particularly because the previous version of the function actually had
> quite a lot of them while the new function has none.
added


--
Teodor Sigaev                                   E-mail: teodor@sigaev.ru
                                                    WWW: http://www.sigaev.ru/

I gave this patch a quick spin and noticed a strange query plan.

CREATE TABLE test (a int, b int, c int);
CREATE INDEX ON test USING gin (a, b, c);
INSERT INTO test SELECT i % 7, i % 9, i % 11 FROM generate_series(1, 
1000000) i;
EXPLAIN ANALYZE SELECT * FROM test WHERE (a = 3 OR b = 5) AND c = 2;
                                                            QUERY PLAN 


----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
BitmapHeap Scan on test  (cost=829.45..4892.10 rows=21819 width=12) 
 
(actual time=66.494..76.234 rows=21645 loops=1)   Recheck Cond: ((((a = 3) AND (c = 2)) OR ((b = 5) AND (c = 2))) AND 
(c = 2))   Heap Blocks: exact=5406   ->  Bitmap Index Scan on test_a_b_c_idx  (cost=0.00..824.00 
rows=2100 width=0) (actual time=65.272..65.272 rows=21645 loops=1)         Index Cond: ((((a = 3) AND (c = 2)) OR ((b =
5)AND (c = 2))) 
 
AND (c = 2)) Planning time: 0.200 ms Execution time: 77.206 ms
(7 rows)

Shouldn't the index condition just be "((a = 3) AND (c = 2)) OR ((b = 5) 
AND (c = 2))"?

Also when applying and reading the patch I noticed some minor 
issues/nitpick.

- I get whitespace warnings from git apply when I apply the patches.
- You have any insconstent style for casts: I think "(Node*)clause" 
should be "(Node *) clause".
- Same with pointers. "List* quals" should be "List *quals"
- I am personally not a fan of seeing the "isorderby == false && 
index->rd_amroutine->amcanorclause" clause twice. Feels like a risk for 
diverging code paths. But it could be that there is no clean alternative.

Andreas

Hi Teodor,

Sadly the v4 does not work for me - I do get assertion failures. For 
example with the example Andreas Karlsson posted in this thread:

CREATE EXTENSION btree_gin;
CREATE TABLE test (a int, b int, c int);
CREATE INDEX ON test USING gin (a, b, c);
INSERT INTO test SELECT i % 7, i % 9, i % 11 FROM generate_series(1, 
1000000) i;
EXPLAIN ANALYZE SELECT * FROM test WHERE (a = 3 OR b = 5) AND c = 2;

It seems working, but only until I run ANALYZE on the table. Once I do 
that, I start getting crashes at this line
    *qualcols = list_concat(*qualcols,                            list_copy(idx_path->indexqualcols));

in convert_bitmap_path_to_index_clause. Apparently one of the lists is 
T_List while the other one is T_IntList, so list_concat() errors out.

My guess is that the T_BitmapOrPath branch should do
    oredqualcols = list_concat(oredqualcols, li_qualcols);    ...    *qualcols = list_concat(qualcols, oredqualcols);

instead of
    oredqualcols = lappend(oredqualcols, li_qualcols);    ...    *qualcols = lappend(*qualcols, oredqualcols);

but once I fixed that I got some other assert failures further down, 
that I haven't tried to fix.

So the patch seems to be broken, and I suspect this might be related to 
the broken index condition reported by Andreas (although I don't see 
that - I either see correct condition or assertion failures).


On 03/17/2016 06:19 PM, Teodor Sigaev wrote:
...
>>
>> 7) I find it rather ugly that the paths are built by converting BitmapOr
>> paths. Firstly, it means indexes without amgetbitmap can't benefit from
>> this change. Maybe that's reasonable limitation, though?
> I based on following thoughts:
> 1 code which tries to find OR-index path will be very similar to existing
>   generate_or_bitmap code. Obviously, it should not be duplicated.
> 2 all existsing indexes have amgetbitmap method, only a few don't.
> amgetbitmap
>   interface is simpler. Anyway, I can add an option for generate_or_bitmap
>   to use any index, but, in current state it will just repeat all work.

I agree that the code should not be duplicated, but is this really a 
good solution. Perhaps a refactoring that'd allow sharing most of the 
code would be more appropriate.

>>
>> But more importantly, this design already has a bunch of unintended
>> consequences. For example, the current code completely ignores
>> enable_indexscan setting, because it merely copies the costs from the
>> bitmap path.>
> I'd like to add separate enable_indexorscan

That may be useful, but why shouldn't enable_indexscan=off also disable 
indexorscan? I would find it rather surprising if after setting 
enable_indexscan=off I'd still get index scans for OR-clauses.

>
>> That's pretty dubious, I guess. So this code probably needs to be made
>> aware of enable_indexscan - right now it entirely ignores startup_cost
>> in convert_bitmap_path_to_index_clause(). But of course if there are
>> multiple IndexPaths, the  enable_indexscan=off will be included multiple
>> times.

... and it does not address this at all.

I really doubt a costing derived from the bitmap index scan nodes will 
make much sense - you essentially need to revert unknown parts of the 
costing to only include building the bitmap once, etc.



regards

-- 
Tomas Vondra                  http://www.2ndQuadrant.com
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services

Hi Teador,

On 3/19/16 8:44 PM, Tomas Vondra wrote:

> Sadly the v4 does not work for me - I do get assertion failures.

Time is growing short and there seem to be some serious concerns with 
this patch.  Can you provide a new patch soon?  If not, I think it might 
be be time to mark this "returned with feedback".

Thanks,
-- 
-David
david@pgmasters.net

On 3/25/16 11:13 AM, David Steele wrote:

> Time is growing short and there seem to be some serious concerns with
> this patch.  Can you provide a new patch soon?  If not, I think it might
> be be time to mark this "returned with feedback".

I have marked this patch "returned with feedback".  Please feel free to 
resubmit for 9.7!

Thanks,
-- 
-David
david@pgmasters.net

On 12/26/15 23:04, Teodor Sigaev wrote:
> I'd like to present OR-clause support for indexes. Although OR-clauses 
> could be supported by bitmapOR index scan it isn't very effective and 
> such scan lost any order existing in index. We (with Alexander Korotkov) 
> presented results on Vienna's conference this year. In short, it 
> provides performance improvement:
> 
> EXPLAIN ANALYZE
> SELECT count(*) FROM tst WHERE id = 5 OR id = 500 OR id = 5000;
> ...
> The problems on the way which I see for now:
> 1 Calculating cost. Right now it's just a simple transformation of costs 
> computed for BitmapOr path. I'd like to hope that's possible and so 
> index's estimation function could be non-touched. So, they could believe 
> that all clauses are implicitly-ANDed
> 2 I'd like to add such support to btree but it seems that it should be a 
> separated patch. Btree search algorithm doesn't use any kind of stack of 
> pages and algorithm to walk over btree doesn't clear for me for now.
> 3 I could miss some places which still assumes  implicitly-ANDed list of 
> clauses although regression tests passes fine.
I support such a cunning approach. But this specific case, you 
demonstrated above, could be optimized independently at an earlier 
stage. If to convert:

(F(A) = ConstStableExpr_1) OR (F(A) = ConstStableExpr_2)
to
F(A) IN (ConstStableExpr_1, ConstStableExpr_2)

it can be seen significant execution speedup. For example, using the 
demo.sql to estimate maximum positive effect we see about 40% of 
execution and 100% of planning speedup.

To avoid unnecessary overhead, induced by the optimization, such 
transformation may be made at the stage of planning (we have cardinality 
estimations and have pruned partitions) but before creation of a 
relation scan paths. So, we can avoid planning overhead and non-optimal 
BitmapOr in the case of many OR's possibly aggravated by many indexes on 
the relation.
For example, such operation can be executed in create_index_paths() 
before passing rel->indexlist.

-- 
Regards
Andrey Lepikhov
Postgres Professional

I agree with your idea and try to implement it and will soon attach a patch with a solution.

I also have a really practical example confirming that such optimization can be useful.

A query was written that consisted of 50000 conditions due to the fact that the ORM framework couldn't work with a query having an ANY operator. In summary, we got a better plan that contained 50000 Bitmap Index Scan nodes with 50000 different conditions. Since approximately 27336 Bite of memory were required to initialize one BitmapOr Index Scan node, therefore, about 1.27 GB of memory was spent at the initialization step of the plan execution and query execution time was about 55756,053 ms (00:55,756).

psql -U postgres -c "CREATE DATABASE test_db" pgbench -U postgres -d test_db -i -s 10

SELECT FORMAT('prepare x %s AS SELECT * FROM pgbench_accounts a      WHERE %s', '(' || string_agg('int', ',') || ')',      string_agg(FORMAT('aid = $%s', g.id), ' or ') ) AS cmd FROM      generate_series(1, 50000) AS g(id) \gexec

SELECT FORMAT('execute x %s;', '(' || string_agg(g.id::text, ',') || ')')      AS cmd FROM generate_series(1, 50000) AS g(id) \gexec 

I got the plan of this query:

                                                                    QUERY PLAN                                                                 
    
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 Bitmap Heap Scan on pgbench_accounts a  (cost=44.35..83.96 rows=10 width=97)
   Recheck Cond: ((aid = 1) OR (aid = 2) OR (aid = 3) OR (aid = 4) OR (aid = 5) OR (aid = 6) OR (aid = 7) OR (aid = 8) OR (aid = 9) OR (aid = 10))
   ->  BitmapOr  (cost=44.35..44.35 rows=10 width=0)
         ->  Bitmap Index Scan on pgbench_accounts_pkey  (cost=0.00..4.43 rows=1 width=0)
               Index Cond: (aid = 1)
         ->  Bitmap Index Scan on pgbench_accounts_pkey  (cost=0.00..4.43 rows=1 width=0)
               Index Cond: (aid = 2)
         ->  Bitmap Index Scan on pgbench_accounts_pkey  (cost=0.00..4.43 rows=1 width=0)
               Index Cond: (aid = 3)
         ->  Bitmap Index Scan on pgbench_accounts_pkey  (cost=0.00..4.43 rows=1 width=0)
               Index Cond: (aid = 4)
         ->  Bitmap Index Scan on pgbench_accounts_pkey  (cost=0.00..4.43 rows=1 width=0)
               Index Cond: (aid = 5)
         ->  Bitmap Index Scan on pgbench_accounts_pkey  (cost=0.00..4.43 rows=1 width=0)
               Index Cond: (aid = 6)
         ->  Bitmap Index Scan on pgbench_accounts_pkey  (cost=0.00..4.43 rows=1 width=0)
               Index Cond: (aid = 7)
         ->  Bitmap Index Scan on pgbench_accounts_pkey  (cost=0.00..4.43 rows=1 width=0)
               Index Cond: (aid = 8)
         ->  Bitmap Index Scan on pgbench_accounts_pkey  (cost=0.00..4.43 rows=1 width=0)
               Index Cond: (aid = 9)
         ->  Bitmap Index Scan on pgbench_accounts_pkey  (cost=0.00..4.43 rows=1 width=0)
               Index Cond: (aid = 10)

If I rewrite this query using ANY operator,

SELECT FORMAT('prepare x %s AS SELECT * FROM pgbench_accounts a WHERE aid = ANY(SELECT g.id FROM generate_series(1, 50000) AS g(id))', '(' || string_agg('int', ',') || ')' ) AS cmd FROM generate_series(1, 50000) AS g(id)
\gexec

I will get a plan where the array comparison operator is used through ANY operator at the index scan stage. It's execution time is significantly lower as  339,764 ms.

                                            QUERY PLAN                                             
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Index Scan using pgbench_accounts_pkey on pgbench_accounts a  (cost=0.42..48.43 rows=10 width=97)   Index Cond: (aid = ANY ('{1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10}'::integer[]))
(2 rows)

SELECT FORMAT('prepare x %s AS SELECT * FROM pgbench_accounts a WHERE aid IN(%s)', '(' || string_agg('int', ',') || ')', string_agg(FORMAT('%s', g.id), ', ') ) AS cmd FROM generate_series(1, 50000) AS g(id)
\gexec

                                            QUERY PLAN                                             
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Index Scan using pgbench_accounts_pkey on pgbench_accounts a  (cost=0.42..48.43 rows=10 width=97)   Index Cond: (aid = ANY ('{1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10}'::integer[]))
(2 rows)

On 12/26/15 23:04, Teodor Sigaev wrote:

I'd like to present OR-clause support for indexes. Although OR-clauses could be supported by bitmapOR index scan it isn't very effective and such scan lost any order existing in index. We (with Alexander Korotkov) presented results on Vienna's conference this year. In short, it provides performance improvement:

EXPLAIN ANALYZE
SELECT count(*) FROM tst WHERE id = 5 OR id = 500 OR id = 5000;
...
The problems on the way which I see for now:
1 Calculating cost. Right now it's just a simple transformation of costs computed for BitmapOr path. I'd like to hope that's possible and so index's estimation function could be non-touched. So, they could believe that all clauses are implicitly-ANDed
2 I'd like to add such support to btree but it seems that it should be a separated patch. Btree search algorithm doesn't use any kind of stack of pages and algorithm to walk over btree doesn't clear for me for now.
3 I could miss some places which still assumes  implicitly-ANDed list of clauses although regression tests passes fine.

I support such a cunning approach. But this specific case, you demonstrated above, could be optimized independently at an earlier stage. If to convert:

(F(A) = ConstStableExpr_1) OR (F(A) = ConstStableExpr_2)
to
F(A) IN (ConstStableExpr_1, ConstStableExpr_2)

it can be seen significant execution speedup. For example, using the demo.sql to estimate maximum positive effect we see about 40% of execution and 100% of planning speedup.

To avoid unnecessary overhead, induced by the optimization, such transformation may be made at the stage of planning (we have cardinality estimations and have pruned partitions) but before creation of a relation scan paths. So, we can avoid planning overhead and non-optimal BitmapOr in the case of many OR's possibly aggravated by many indexes on the relation.
For example, such operation can be executed in create_index_paths() before passing rel->indexlist.

-- 
Alena Rybakina
Postgres Professional

Hi, all! Sorry I haven't written for a long time.

I finished writing the code patch for transformation "Or" expressions to "Any" expressions. I didn't see any problems in regression tests, even when I changed the constant at which the minimum or expression is replaced by any at 0. I ran my patch on sqlancer and so far the code has never fallen.

I agree with your idea and try to implement it and will soon attach a patch with a solution.

Additionally, if those OR constants repeat you'll see ...

If all constants are the same value, fine

explain select * from x where ((ID = 1) OR (ID = 1) OR (ID = 1)); 

Index Only Scan using x_id on x  (cost=0.42..4.44 rows=1 width=4)
  Index Cond: (id = 1)

if all values are almost the same, ops

explain select * from x where ((ID = 1) OR (ID = 1) OR (ID = 1) OR (ID = 2));

Bitmap Heap Scan on x  (cost=17.73..33.45 rows=4 width=4)
  Recheck Cond: ((id = 1) OR (id = 1) OR (id = 1) OR (id = 2))
  ->  BitmapOr  (cost=17.73..17.73 rows=4 width=0)
        ->  Bitmap Index Scan on x_id  (cost=0.00..4.43 rows=1 width=0)
              Index Cond: (id = 1)
        ->  Bitmap Index Scan on x_id  (cost=0.00..4.43 rows=1 width=0)
              Index Cond: (id = 1)
        ->  Bitmap Index Scan on x_id  (cost=0.00..4.43 rows=1 width=0)
              Index Cond: (id = 1)
        ->  Bitmap Index Scan on x_id  (cost=0.00..4.43 rows=1 width=0)
              Index Cond: (id = 2)

thanks

Marcos

--

Regards,

Alena Rybakina

Sorry,  I wrote the last sentence in a confusing way, I meant that I formed transformations for any number of "or" expressions (const_transform_or_limit=1). in regression tests, I noticed only diff changes of transformations of "or" expressions to "any". I attach a file with diff.

Hi, all! Sorry I haven't written for a long time.

I finished writing the code patch for transformation "Or" expressions to "Any" expressions. I didn't see any problems in regression tests, even when I changed the constant at which the minimum or expression is replaced by any at 0. I ran my patch on sqlancer and so far the code has never fallen.

On 14.01.2023 18:45, Marcos Pegoraro wrote:

I agree with your idea and try to implement it and will soon attach a patch with a solution.

Additionally, if those OR constants repeat you'll see ...

If all constants are the same value, fine

explain select * from x where ((ID = 1) OR (ID = 1) OR (ID = 1)); 

Index Only Scan using x_id on x  (cost=0.42..4.44 rows=1 width=4)
  Index Cond: (id = 1)

if all values are almost the same, ops

explain select * from x where ((ID = 1) OR (ID = 1) OR (ID = 1) OR (ID = 2));

Bitmap Heap Scan on x  (cost=17.73..33.45 rows=4 width=4)
  Recheck Cond: ((id = 1) OR (id = 1) OR (id = 1) OR (id = 2))
  ->  BitmapOr  (cost=17.73..17.73 rows=4 width=0)
        ->  Bitmap Index Scan on x_id  (cost=0.00..4.43 rows=1 width=0)
              Index Cond: (id = 1)
        ->  Bitmap Index Scan on x_id  (cost=0.00..4.43 rows=1 width=0)
              Index Cond: (id = 1)
        ->  Bitmap Index Scan on x_id  (cost=0.00..4.43 rows=1 width=0)
              Index Cond: (id = 1)
        ->  Bitmap Index Scan on x_id  (cost=0.00..4.43 rows=1 width=0)
              Index Cond: (id = 2)

thanks

Marcos

--

Regards,

Alena Rybakina

On Sun, Jun 25, 2023 at 6:48 PM Alena Rybakina <lena.ribackina@yandex.ru> wrote:
> I finished writing the code patch for transformation "Or" expressions to "Any" expressions.

This seems interesting to me. I'm currently working on improving
nbtree's "native execution of ScalarArrayOpExpr quals" (see commit
9e8da0f7 for background information). That is relevant to what you're
trying to do here.

Right now nbtree's handling of ScalarArrayOpExpr is rather
inefficient. The executor does pass the index scan an array of
constants, so the whole structure already allows the nbtree code to
execute the ScalarArrayOpExpr in whatever way would be most efficient.
There is only one problem: it doesn't really try to do so. It more or
less just breaks down the large ScalarArrayOpExpr into "mini" queries
-- one per constant. Internally, query execution isn't significantly
different to executing many of these "mini" queries independently. We
just sort and deduplicate the arrays. We don't intelligently decide
which pages dynamically. This is related to skip scan.

Attached is an example query that shows the problem. Right now the
query needs to access a buffer containing an index page a total of 24
times. It's actually accessing the same 2 pages 12 times. My draft
patch only requires 2 buffer accesses -- because it "coalesces the
array constants together" dynamically at run time. That is a little
extreme, but it's certainly possible.

BTW, this project is related to skip scan. It's part of the same
family of techniques -- MDAM techniques. (I suppose that that's
already true for ScalarArrayOpExpr execution by nbtree, but without
dynamic behavior it's not nearly as valuable as it could be.)

If executing ScalarArrayOpExprs was less inefficient in these cases
then the planner could be a lot more aggressive about using them.
Seems like these executor improvements might go well together with
what you're doing in the planner. Note that I have to "set
random_page_cost=0.1" to get the planner to use all of the quals from
the query as index quals. It thinks (correctly) that the query plan is
very inefficient. That happens to match reality right now, but the
underlying reality could change significantly. Something to think
about.

--
Peter Geoghegan

On Sun, Jun 25, 2023 at 6:48 PM Alena Rybakina <lena.ribackina@yandex.ru> wrote:

I finished writing the code patch for transformation "Or" expressions to "Any" expressions.

This seems interesting to me. I'm currently working on improving
nbtree's "native execution of ScalarArrayOpExpr quals" (see commit
9e8da0f7 for background information). That is relevant to what you're
trying to do here.

Right now nbtree's handling of ScalarArrayOpExpr is rather
inefficient. The executor does pass the index scan an array of
constants, so the whole structure already allows the nbtree code to
execute the ScalarArrayOpExpr in whatever way would be most efficient.
There is only one problem: it doesn't really try to do so. It more or
less just breaks down the large ScalarArrayOpExpr into "mini" queries
-- one per constant. Internally, query execution isn't significantly
different to executing many of these "mini" queries independently. We
just sort and deduplicate the arrays. We don't intelligently decide
which pages dynamically. This is related to skip scan.

Attached is an example query that shows the problem. Right now the
query needs to access a buffer containing an index page a total of 24
times. It's actually accessing the same 2 pages 12 times. My draft
patch only requires 2 buffer accesses -- because it "coalesces the
array constants together" dynamically at run time. That is a little
extreme, but it's certainly possible.

BTW, this project is related to skip scan. It's part of the same
family of techniques -- MDAM techniques. (I suppose that that's
already true for ScalarArrayOpExpr execution by nbtree, but without
dynamic behavior it's not nearly as valuable as it could be.)

If executing ScalarArrayOpExprs was less inefficient in these cases
then the planner could be a lot more aggressive about using them.
Seems like these executor improvements might go well together with
what you're doing in the planner. Note that I have to "set
random_page_cost=0.1" to get the planner to use all of the quals from
the query as index quals. It thinks (correctly) that the query plan is
very inefficient. That happens to match reality right now, but the
underlying reality could change significantly. Something to think
about.

--
Peter Geoghegan

-- 
Regards,
Alena Rybakina

Thank you for your feedback, your work is also very interesting and important, and I will be happy to review it. I learned something new from your letter, thank you very much for that!

I analyzed the buffer consumption when I ran control regression tests using my patch. diff shows me that there is no difference between the number of buffer block scans without and using my patch, as far as I have seen. (regression.diffs)


In addition, I analyzed the scheduling and duration of the execution time of the source code and with my applied patch. I generated 20 billion data from pgbench and plotted the scheduling and execution time depending on the number of "or" expressions.
By runtime, I noticed a clear acceleration for queries when using the index, but I can't say the same when the index is disabled.
At first I turned it off in this way:
1)enable_seqscan='off'
2)enable_indexonlyscan='off'
enable_indexscan='off'

Unfortunately, it is not yet clear which constant needs to be set when the transformation needs to be done, I will still study in detail. (the graph for all this is presented in graph1.svg)

\\

-- 
Regards,
Alena Rybakina

-- 
Regards,
Alena Rybakina

On Tue, Jun 27, 2023 at 6:19 AM Alena Rybakina <lena.ribackina@yandex.ru> wrote:
> I learned something new from your letter, thank you very much for that!

Cool. The MDAM paper is also worth a read:

https://vldb.org/conf/1995/P710.PDF

Some of the techniques it describes are already in Postgres. With
varying degrees of maturity.

The paper actually mentions OR optimization at one point, under
"Duplicate Elimination". The general idea is that ScalarArrayOpExpr
execution can "eliminate duplicates before the data is read". The
important underlying principle is that it can be really useful to give
the B-Tree code the context it requires to be clever about stuff like
that. We can do this by (say) using one ScalarArrayOpExpr, rather than
using two or more index scans that the B-Tree code will treat as
independent things. So a lot of the value in your patch comes from the
way that it can enable other optimizations (the immediate benefits are
 also nice).

In the past, OR optimizations have been prototyped that were later
withdrawn/rejected because the duplicate elimination aspect was...too
scary [1]. It's very easy to see that ScalarArrayOpExpr index scans
don't really have the same problem. "Giving the B-Tree code the
required context" helps here too.

> I analyzed the buffer consumption when I ran control regression tests using my patch. diff shows me that there is no
differencebetween the number of buffer block scans without and using my patch, as far as I have seen.
(regression.diffs)

To be clear, I wasn't expecting that there'd be any regressions from
your patch. Intuitively, it seems like this optimization should make
the query plan do almost the same thing at execution time -- just
slightly more efficiently on average, and much more efficiently in
some individual cases.

It would probably be very hard for the optimizer to model/predict how
much work it can save by using a ScalarArrayOpExpr instead of an
"equivalent" set of bitmap index scans, OR'd together. But it doesn't
necessarily matter -- the only truly critical detail is understanding
the worst case for the transformation optimization. It cannot be too
bad (maybe it's ~zero added runtime overhead relative to not doing the
transformation, even?). At the same time, nbtree can be clever about
ScalarArrayOpExpr execution at runtime (once that's implemented),
without ever needing to make any kind of up-front commitment to
navigating through the index in any particular way. It's all dynamic,
and can be driven by the actual observed characteristics of the index
structure.

In other words, we don't really need to gamble (in the planner, or at
execution time). We're just keeping our options open in more cases.
(My thinking on these topics was influenced by Goetz Graefe -- "choice
is confusion" [2]).

[1] https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/flat/1397.1486598083%40sss.pgh.pa.us#310f974a8dc84478d6d3c70f336807bb
[2] https://sigmodrecord.org/publications/sigmodRecord/2009/pdfs/05_Profiles_Graefe.pdf
--
Peter Geoghegan

On 6/27/23 20:55, Ranier Vilela wrote:
> Hi,
> 
>>I finished writing the code patch for transformation "Or" expressions to
>>"Any" expressions. I didn't see any problems in regression tests, even
>>when I changed the constant at which the minimum or expression is
>>replaced by any at 0. I ran my patch on sqlancer and so far the code has
>>never fallen.
> Thanks for working on this.
> 
> I took the liberty of making some modifications to the patch.
> I didn't compile or test it.
> Please feel free to use them.
> 

I don't want to be rude, but this doesn't seem very helpful.

- You made some changes, but you don't even attempt to explain what you
changed or why you changed it.

- You haven't even tried to compile the code, nor tested it. If it
happens to compile, wow could others even know it actually behaves the
way you wanted?

- You responded in a way that breaks the original thread, so it's not
clear which message you're responding to.



regards

-- 
Tomas Vondra
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company

Hi!

I don't want to be rude, but this doesn't seem very helpful.

Sorry, It was not my intention to cause interruptions.

- You made some changes, but you don't even attempt to explain what you
changed or why you changed it.

1. Reduce scope

2. Eliminate unnecessary variables

3. Eliminate unnecessary expressions

 

- You haven't even tried to compile the code, nor tested it. If it
happens to compile, wow could others even know it actually behaves the
way you wanted?

Sorry I didn't answer right away. I will try not to do this in the future thank you for your participation and help.

Yes, the scope of this patch may be small, but I am sure that it will solve the worst case of memory consumption with large numbers of "or" expressions or reduce execution and planning time. As I have already said, I conducted a launch on a database with 20 billion data generated using a benchmark. Unfortunately, at that time I sent a not quite correct picture: the execution time, not the planning time, increases with the number of "or" expressions (execution_time.png). x is the number of or expressions, y is the execution/scheduling time.

I also throw memory consumption at 50,000 "or" expressions collected by HeapTrack (where memory consumption was recorded already at the initialization stage of the 1.27GB pic3.png). I think such a transformation will allow just the same to avoid such a worst case, since in comparison with ANY memory is much less and takes little time.

SELECT FORMAT('prepare x %s AS SELECT * FROM pgbench_accounts a WHERE %s', '(' || string_agg('int', ',') || ')', string_agg(FORMAT('aid = $%s', g.id), ' or ') ) AS cmd FROM generate_series(1, 50000) AS g(id)
\gexec

SELECT FORMAT('execute x %s;', '(' || string_agg(g.id::text, ',') || ')') AS cmd FROM generate_series(1, 50000) AS g(id)
\gexec

I tried to add a transformation at the path formation stage before we form indexes (set_plain_rel_pathlist function) and at the stage when we have preprocessing of "or" expressions (getting rid of duplicates or useless conditions), but everywhere there was a problem of incorrect selectivity estimation.

CREATE TABLE tenk1 (unique1 int, unique2 int, ten int, hundred int);
insert into tenk1 SELECT x,x,x,x FROM generate_series(1,50000) as x;
CREATE INDEX a_idx1 ON tenk1(unique1);
CREATE INDEX a_idx2 ON tenk1(unique2);
CREATE INDEX a_hundred ON tenk1(hundred);

postgres=# explain analyze
select * from tenk1 a join tenk1 b on  ((a.unique2 = 3 or a.unique2 = 7)) or (a.unique1 = 1);                                                      QUERY PLAN                                                      
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Nested Loop  (cost=0.00..140632434.50 rows=11250150000 width=32) (actual time=0.077..373.279 rows=1350000 loops=1)   ->  Seq Scan on tenk1 b  (cost=0.00..2311.00 rows=150000 width=16) (actual time=0.037..13.941 rows=150000 loops=1)   ->  Materialize  (cost=0.00..3436.01 rows=75001 width=16) (actual time=0.000..0.001 rows=9 loops=150000)         ->  Seq Scan on tenk1 a  (cost=0.00..3061.00 rows=75001 width=16) (actual time=0.027..59.174 rows=9 loops=1)               Filter: ((unique2 = ANY (ARRAY[3, 7])) OR (unique1 = 1))               Rows Removed by Filter: 149991 Planning Time: 0.438 ms Execution Time: 407.144 ms
(8 rows)

Only by converting the expression at this stage, we do not encounter this problem.

postgres=# set enable_bitmapscan ='off';
SET
postgres=# explain analyze
select * from tenk1 a join tenk1 b on  a.unique2 = 3 or a.unique2 = 7 or a.unique1 = 1;                                                      QUERY PLAN                                                      
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Nested Loop  (cost=0.00..22247.02 rows=1350000 width=32) (actual time=0.094..373.627 rows=1350000 loops=1)   ->  Seq Scan on tenk1 b  (cost=0.00..2311.00 rows=150000 width=16) (actual time=0.051..14.667 rows=150000 loops=1)   ->  Materialize  (cost=0.00..3061.05 rows=9 width=16) (actual time=0.000..0.001 rows=9 loops=150000)         ->  Seq Scan on tenk1 a  (cost=0.00..3061.00 rows=9 width=16) (actual time=0.026..42.389 rows=9 loops=1)               Filter: ((unique2 = ANY ('{3,7}'::integer[])) OR (unique1 = 1))               Rows Removed by Filter: 149991 Planning Time: 0.414 ms Execution Time: 409.154 ms
(8 rows)

I compiled my original patch and there were no problems with regression tests. The only time there was a problem when I set the const_transform_or_limit variable to 0 (I have 15), as you have in the patch. To be honest, diff appears there because you had a different plan, specifically the expressions "or" are replaced by ANY (see regression.diffs).
Unfortunately, your patch version did not apply immediately, I did not understand the reasons, I applied it manually.
At the moment, I'm not sure that the constant is the right number for applying transformations, so I'm in search of it, to be honest. I will post my observations on this issue later. If you don't mind, I'll leave the constant equal to 15 for now.

Sorry, I don't understand well enough what is meant by points "Eliminate unnecessary variables" and "Eliminate unnecessary expressions". Can you explain in more detail?

Regarding the patch, there was a Warning at the compilation stage. 

In file included from ../../../src/include/nodes/bitmapset.h:21,

                 from ../../../src/include/nodes/parsenodes.h:26,

                 from ../../../src/include/catalog/objectaddress.h:17,

                 from ../../../src/include/catalog/pg_aggregate.h:24,

                 from parse_expr.c:18:

parse_expr.c: In function ‘transformBoolExprOr’:

../../../src/include/nodes/nodes.h:133:66: warning: ‘expr’ is used uninitialized [-Wuninitialized]

  133 | #define nodeTag(nodeptr)                (((const Node*)(nodeptr))->type)

      |                                                                  ^~

parse_expr.c:116:29: note: ‘expr’ was declared here

  116 |         BoolExpr           *expr;

      |                             ^~~~

I couldn't figure out how to fix it and went back to my original version. To be honest, I don't think anything needs to be changed here.

Unfortunately, I didn't understand the reasons why, with the available or expressions, you don't even try to convert to ANY by calling transformBoolExpr, as I saw. I went back to my version.

I think it's worth checking whether the or_statement variable is positive.

I think it's worth leaving the use of the or_statement variable in its original form.

  switch (expr->boolop)
  {
    case AND_EXPR:
      opname = "AND";
      break;
    case OR_EXPR:
      opname = "OR";
      or_statement = true;
      break;
    case NOT_EXPR:
      opname = "NOT";
      break;
    default:
      elog(ERROR, "unrecognized boolop: %d", (int) expr->boolop);
      opname = NULL;    /* keep compiler quiet */
      break;
  }

  if (!or_statement || list_length(expr->args) < const_transform_or_limit)
    return transformBoolExpr(pstate, (BoolExpr *)expr_orig);

The current version of the patch also works and all tests pass.

-- 
Regards,
Alena Rybakina
Postgres Professional

Sorry for the possible duplicate. I have a suspicion that the previous email was not sent.

Hi!

Em qua., 28 de jun. de 2023 às 18:45, Tomas Vondra <tomas.vondra@enterprisedb.com> escreveu:

On 6/27/23 20:55, Ranier Vilela wrote:
> Hi,
>
>>I finished writing the code patch for transformation "Or" expressions to
>>"Any" expressions. I didn't see any problems in regression tests, even
>>when I changed the constant at which the minimum or expression is
>>replaced by any at 0. I ran my patch on sqlancer and so far the code has
>>never fallen.
> Thanks for working on this.
>
> I took the liberty of making some modifications to the patch.
> I didn't compile or test it.
> Please feel free to use them.
>

I don't want to be rude, but this doesn't seem very helpful.

Sorry, It was not my intention to cause interruptions.

- You made some changes, but you don't even attempt to explain what you
changed or why you changed it.

1. Reduce scope

2. Eliminate unnecessary variables

3. Eliminate unnecessary expressions

 

- You haven't even tried to compile the code, nor tested it. If it
happens to compile, wow could others even know it actually behaves the
way you wanted?

Attached v2 with make check pass all tests.

Ubuntu 64 bits

gcc 64 bits

- You responded in a way that breaks the original thread, so it's not
clear which message you're responding to.

It was a pretty busy day.

Sorry for the noise, I hope I was of some help.

regards,

Ranier Vilela

P.S.

0001-Replace-clause-X-N1-OR-X-N2-.-with-X-ANY-N1-N2-on.patch fails with 4 tests.

Sorry I didn't answer right away. I will try not to do this in the future thank you for your participation and help.

Yes, the scope of this patch may be small, but I am sure that it will solve the worst case of memory consumption with large numbers of "or" expressions or reduce execution and planning time. As I have already said, I conducted a launch on a database with 20 billion data generated using a benchmark. Unfortunately, at that time I sent a not quite correct picture: the execution time, not the planning time, increases with the number of "or" expressions (https://www.dropbox.com/s/u7gt81blbv2adpi/execution_time.png?dl=0). x is the number of or expressions, y is the execution/scheduling time.

I also throw memory consumption at 50,000 "or" expressions collected by HeapTrack (where memory consumption was recorded already at the initialization stage of the 1.27GB https://www.dropbox.com/s/vb827ya0193dlz0/pic3.png?dl=0). I think such a transformation will allow just the same to avoid such a worst case, since in comparison with ANY memory is much less and takes little time.

SELECT FORMAT('prepare x %s AS SELECT * FROM pgbench_accounts a WHERE %s', '(' || string_agg('int', ',') || ')', string_agg(FORMAT('aid = $%s', g.id), ' or ') ) AS cmd FROM generate_series(1, 50000) AS g(id)
\gexec

SELECT FORMAT('execute x %s;', '(' || string_agg(g.id::text, ',') || ')') AS cmd FROM generate_series(1, 50000) AS g(id)
\gexec

I tried to add a transformation at the path formation stage before we form indexes (set_plain_rel_pathlist function) and at the stage when we have preprocessing of "or" expressions (getting rid of duplicates or useless conditions), but everywhere there was a problem of incorrect selectivity estimation.

CREATE TABLE tenk1 (unique1 int, unique2 int, ten int, hundred int);
insert into tenk1 SELECT x,x,x,x FROM generate_series(1,50000) as x;
CREATE INDEX a_idx1 ON tenk1(unique1);
CREATE INDEX a_idx2 ON tenk1(unique2);
CREATE INDEX a_hundred ON tenk1(hundred);

postgres=# explain analyze
select * from tenk1 a join tenk1 b on  ((a.unique2 = 3 or a.unique2 = 7)) or (a.unique1 = 1);                                                      QUERY PLAN                                                      
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Nested Loop  (cost=0.00..140632434.50 rows=11250150000 width=32) (actual time=0.077..373.279 rows=1350000 loops=1)   ->  Seq Scan on tenk1 b  (cost=0.00..2311.00 rows=150000 width=16) (actual time=0.037..13.941 rows=150000 loops=1)   ->  Materialize  (cost=0.00..3436.01 rows=75001 width=16) (actual time=0.000..0.001 rows=9 loops=150000)         ->  Seq Scan on tenk1 a  (cost=0.00..3061.00 rows=75001 width=16) (actual time=0.027..59.174 rows=9 loops=1)               Filter: ((unique2 = ANY (ARRAY[3, 7])) OR (unique1 = 1))               Rows Removed by Filter: 149991 Planning Time: 0.438 ms Execution Time: 407.144 ms
(8 rows)

Only by converting the expression at this stage, we do not encounter this problem.

postgres=# set enable_bitmapscan ='off';
SET
postgres=# explain analyze
select * from tenk1 a join tenk1 b on  a.unique2 = 3 or a.unique2 = 7 or a.unique1 = 1;                                                      QUERY PLAN                                                      
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Nested Loop  (cost=0.00..22247.02 rows=1350000 width=32) (actual time=0.094..373.627 rows=1350000 loops=1)   ->  Seq Scan on tenk1 b  (cost=0.00..2311.00 rows=150000 width=16) (actual time=0.051..14.667 rows=150000 loops=1)   ->  Materialize  (cost=0.00..3061.05 rows=9 width=16) (actual time=0.000..0.001 rows=9 loops=150000)         ->  Seq Scan on tenk1 a  (cost=0.00..3061.00 rows=9 width=16) (actual time=0.026..42.389 rows=9 loops=1)               Filter: ((unique2 = ANY ('{3,7}'::integer[])) OR (unique1 = 1))               Rows Removed by Filter: 149991 Planning Time: 0.414 ms Execution Time: 409.154 ms
(8 rows)

I compiled my original patch and there were no problems with regression tests. The only time there was a problem when I set the const_transform_or_limit variable to 0 (I have 15), as you have in the patch. To be honest, diff appears there because you had a different plan, specifically the expressions "or" are replaced by ANY (see regression.diffs).
Unfortunately, your patch version did not apply immediately, I did not understand the reasons, I applied it manually.
At the moment, I'm not sure that the constant is the right number for applying transformations, so I'm in search of it, to be honest. I will post my observations on this issue later. If you don't mind, I'll leave the constant equal to 15 for now.

Sorry, I don't understand well enough what is meant by points "Eliminate unnecessary variables" and "Eliminate unnecessary expressions". Can you explain in more detail?

Regarding the patch, there was a Warning at the compilation stage. 

In file included from ../../../src/include/nodes/bitmapset.h:21,

                 from ../../../src/include/nodes/parsenodes.h:26,

                 from ../../../src/include/catalog/objectaddress.h:17,

                 from ../../../src/include/catalog/pg_aggregate.h:24,

                 from parse_expr.c:18:

parse_expr.c: In function ‘transformBoolExprOr’:

../../../src/include/nodes/nodes.h:133:66: warning: ‘expr’ is used uninitialized [-Wuninitialized]

  133 | #define nodeTag(nodeptr)                (((const Node*)(nodeptr))->type)

      |                                                                  ^~

parse_expr.c:116:29: note: ‘expr’ was declared here

  116 |         BoolExpr           *expr;

      |                             ^~~~

I couldn't figure out how to fix it and went back to my original version. To be honest, I don't think anything needs to be changed here.

Unfortunately, I didn't understand the reasons why, with the available or expressions, you don't even try to convert to ANY by calling transformBoolExpr, as I saw. I went back to my version.

I think it's worth checking whether the or_statement variable is positive.

I think it's worth leaving the use of the or_statement variable in its original form.

  switch (expr->boolop)
  {
    case AND_EXPR:
      opname = "AND";
      break;
    case OR_EXPR:
      opname = "OR";
      or_statement = true;
      break;
    case NOT_EXPR:
      opname = "NOT";
      break;
    default:
      elog(ERROR, "unrecognized boolop: %d", (int) expr->boolop);
      opname = NULL;    /* keep compiler quiet */
      break;
  }

  if (!or_statement || list_length(expr->args) < const_transform_or_limit)
    return transformBoolExpr(pstate, (BoolExpr *)expr_orig);
The current version of the patch also works and all tests pass.

-- 
Regards,
Alena Rybakina
Postgres Professional

Hi! I'm sorry I didn't answer you right away, I was too busy with work.

On Tue, Jun 27, 2023 at 6:19 AM Alena Rybakina <lena.ribackina@yandex.ru> wrote:

I learned something new from your letter, thank you very much for that!

Cool. The MDAM paper is also worth a read:

https://vldb.org/conf/1995/P710.PDF

Some of the techniques it describes are already in Postgres. With
varying degrees of maturity.

The paper actually mentions OR optimization at one point, under
"Duplicate Elimination". The general idea is that ScalarArrayOpExpr
execution can "eliminate duplicates before the data is read". The
important underlying principle is that it can be really useful to give
the B-Tree code the context it requires to be clever about stuff like
that. We can do this by (say) using one ScalarArrayOpExpr, rather than
using two or more index scans that the B-Tree code will treat as
independent things. So a lot of the value in your patch comes from the
way that it can enable other optimizations (the immediate benefits are also nice).

In the past, OR optimizations have been prototyped that were later
withdrawn/rejected because the duplicate elimination aspect was...too
scary [1]. It's very easy to see that ScalarArrayOpExpr index scans
don't really have the same problem. "Giving the B-Tree code the
required context" helps here too.

Thank you for the explanation and the material provided) unfortunately, I am still only studying the article and at the moment I cannot write more. To be honest, I didn't think about the fact that my optimization can help eliminate duplicates before reading the data before.

I am still only in the process of familiarizing myself with the thread [1] (reference from your letter), but I have already seen that there are problems related, for example, to when "or" expressions refer to the parent element.

I think, I would face the similar problems if I complicate the current code, for example, so that not only or expressions standing on the same level are written in any, but also on different ones without violating the logic of the priority of executing operators.

For example, this query works now:

postgres=# EXPLAIN (analyze, COSTS OFF)
SELECT oid,relname FROM pg_class
WHERE
  (oid = 13779 OR oid = 2) OR (oid = 4 OR oid = 5) OR
  relname = 'pg_extension'
;

                                                    QUERY PLAN                                                    
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 Seq Scan on pg_class (actual time=0.086..0.140 rows=1 loops=1)
   Filter: ((oid = ANY ('{4,5}'::oid[])) OR (oid = ANY ('{13779,2}'::oid[])) OR (relname = 'pg_extension'::name))
   Rows Removed by Filter: 412
 Planning Time: 2.135 ms
 Execution Time: 0.160 ms
(5 rows)

But I would like it works such as:

                                      QUERY PLAN                                      
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 Seq Scan on pg_class (actual time=0.279..0.496 rows=1 loops=1)
   Filter: ((oid = ANY ('{13779,2,4,5}'::oid[])) OR (relname = 'pg_extension'::name))
   Rows Removed by Filter: 412
 Planning Time: 0.266 ms
 Execution Time: 0.536 ms
(5 rows)

I analyzed the buffer consumption when I ran control regression tests using my patch. diff shows me that there is no difference between the number of buffer block scans without and using my patch, as far as I have seen. (regression.diffs)

To be clear, I wasn't expecting that there'd be any regressions from
your patch. Intuitively, it seems like this optimization should make
the query plan do almost the same thing at execution time -- just
slightly more efficiently on average, and much more efficiently in
some individual cases.

It would probably be very hard for the optimizer to model/predict how
much work it can save by using a ScalarArrayOpExpr instead of an
"equivalent" set of bitmap index scans, OR'd together. But it doesn't
necessarily matter -- the only truly critical detail is understanding
the worst case for the transformation optimization.

 It cannot be too
bad (maybe it's ~zero added runtime overhead relative to not doing the
transformation, even?). 

At the same time, nbtree can be clever about
ScalarArrayOpExpr execution at runtime (once that's implemented),
without ever needing to make any kind of up-front commitment to
navigating through the index in any particular way. It's all dynamic,
and can be driven by the actual observed characteristics of the index
structure.

In other words, we don't really need to gamble (in the planner, or at
execution time). We're just keeping our options open in more cases.
(My thinking on these topics was influenced by Goetz Graefe -- "choice
is confusion" [2]).

Unfortunately, when I tried to make a transformation at the stage of index formation, I encountered too incorrect an assessment of the selectivity of relation, which affected the incorrect calculation of the cost and cardinality. I couldn't solve this problem.

My diff (transform_or_v0.diff). I got this result:

CREATE TABLE tenk1 (unique1 int, unique2 int, ten int, hundred int);
insert into tenk1 SELECT x,x,x,x FROM generate_series(1,50000) as x;
CREATE INDEX a_idx1 ON tenk1(unique1);
CREATE INDEX a_idx2 ON tenk1(unique2);
CREATE INDEX a_hundred ON tenk1(hundred);

postgres=# explain analyze
select * from tenk1 a join tenk1 b on  a.unique2 = 3 or a.unique2 = 7 or a.unique1 = 1;                                                      QUERY PLAN                                                      
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Nested Loop  (cost=0.00..15627479.50 rows=1250050000 width=32) (actual time=0.040..75.531 rows=150000 loops=1)   ->  Seq Scan on tenk1 b  (cost=0.00..771.00 rows=50000 width=16) (actual time=0.022..5.467 rows=50000 loops=1)   ->  Materialize  (cost=0.00..1146.01 rows=25001 width=16) (actual time=0.000..0.001 rows=3 loops=50000)         ->  Seq Scan on tenk1 a  (cost=0.00..1021.00 rows=25001 width=16) (actual time=0.011..22.789 rows=3 loops=1)               Filter: ((unique2 = ANY (ARRAY[3, 7])) OR (unique1 = 1))               Rows Removed by Filter: 49997 Planning Time: 0.427 ms Execution Time: 80.027 ms
(8 rows)

The current patch's result:

postgres=# set enable_bitmapscan ='off';
SET
postgres=# explain analyze
select * from tenk1 a join tenk1 b on  a.unique2 = 3 or a.unique2 = 7 or a.unique1 = 1;                                                      QUERY PLAN                                                      
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Nested Loop  (cost=0.00..22247.02 rows=1350000 width=32) (actual time=0.094..373.627 rows=1350000 loops=1)   ->  Seq Scan on tenk1 b  (cost=0.00..2311.00 rows=150000 width=16) (actual time=0.051..14.667 rows=150000 loops=1)   ->  Materialize  (cost=0.00..3061.05 rows=9 width=16) (actual time=0.000..0.001 rows=9 loops=150000)         ->  Seq Scan on tenk1 a  (cost=0.00..3061.00 rows=9 width=16) (actual time=0.026..42.389 rows=9 loops=1)               Filter: ((unique2 = ANY ('{3,7}'::integer[])) OR (unique1 = 1))               Rows Removed by Filter: 149991 Planning Time: 0.414 ms Execution Time: 409.154 ms
(8 rows)

[1] https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/flat/1397.1486598083%40sss.pgh.pa.us#310f974a8dc84478d6d3c70f336807bb
[2] https://sigmodrecord.org/publications/sigmodRecord/2009/pdfs/05_Profiles_Graefe.pdf

--

Regards,
Alena Rybakina
Postgres Professional

I apologize for breaks the original thread. In my defense, I can say that I'm new to all this and I'm just learning. I will try to make as few mistakes as possible.

I try to fix it by forwarding this message to you, besides it might be interesting to you too. This message to you, because it might be interesting to you too.

I'm sorry if I didn't state my goals clearly at first, but it seemed to me that initially the problem I encountered was very similar to what is described in this thread, only I suggested a slightly different way to solve it.

I have described the problem more or less clearly here [1] and the worst case, as it seems to me, too, but if this is not the case, let me know. 1. https://www.mail-archive.com/pgsql-hackers@lists.postgresql.org/msg146230.html

On 29.06.2023 12:32, Alena Rybakina wrote:

Hi! I'm sorry I didn't answer you right away, I was too busy with work.

On 27.06.2023 22:50, Peter Geoghegan wrote:

On Tue, Jun 27, 2023 at 6:19 AM Alena Rybakina <lena.ribackina@yandex.ru> wrote:

I learned something new from your letter, thank you very much for that!

Cool. The MDAM paper is also worth a read:

https://vldb.org/conf/1995/P710.PDF

Some of the techniques it describes are already in Postgres. With
varying degrees of maturity.

The paper actually mentions OR optimization at one point, under
"Duplicate Elimination". The general idea is that ScalarArrayOpExpr
execution can "eliminate duplicates before the data is read". The
important underlying principle is that it can be really useful to give
the B-Tree code the context it requires to be clever about stuff like
that. We can do this by (say) using one ScalarArrayOpExpr, rather than
using two or more index scans that the B-Tree code will treat as
independent things. So a lot of the value in your patch comes from the
way that it can enable other optimizations (the immediate benefits are also nice).

In the past, OR optimizations have been prototyped that were later
withdrawn/rejected because the duplicate elimination aspect was...too
scary [1]. It's very easy to see that ScalarArrayOpExpr index scans
don't really have the same problem. "Giving the B-Tree code the
required context" helps here too.

Thank you for the explanation and the material provided) unfortunately, I am still only studying the article and at the moment I cannot write more. To be honest, I didn't think about the fact that my optimization can help eliminate duplicates before reading the data before.

I am still only in the process of familiarizing myself with the thread [1] (reference from your letter), but I have already seen that there are problems related, for example, to when "or" expressions refer to the parent element.

I think, I would face the similar problems if I complicate the current code, for example, so that not only or expressions standing on the same level are written in any, but also on different ones without violating the logic of the priority of executing operators.

For example, this query works now:

postgres=# EXPLAIN (analyze, COSTS OFF)
SELECT oid,relname FROM pg_class
WHERE
  (oid = 13779 OR oid = 2) OR (oid = 4 OR oid = 5) OR
  relname = 'pg_extension'
;

                                                    QUERY PLAN                                                    
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 Seq Scan on pg_class (actual time=0.086..0.140 rows=1 loops=1)
   Filter: ((oid = ANY ('{4,5}'::oid[])) OR (oid = ANY ('{13779,2}'::oid[])) OR (relname = 'pg_extension'::name))
   Rows Removed by Filter: 412
 Planning Time: 2.135 ms
 Execution Time: 0.160 ms
(5 rows)

But I would like it works such as:

                                      QUERY PLAN                                      
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 Seq Scan on pg_class (actual time=0.279..0.496 rows=1 loops=1)
   Filter: ((oid = ANY ('{13779,2,4,5}'::oid[])) OR (relname = 'pg_extension'::name))
   Rows Removed by Filter: 412
 Planning Time: 0.266 ms
 Execution Time: 0.536 ms
(5 rows)

I analyzed the buffer consumption when I ran control regression tests using my patch. diff shows me that there is no difference between the number of buffer block scans without and using my patch, as far as I have seen. (regression.diffs)

To be clear, I wasn't expecting that there'd be any regressions from
your patch. Intuitively, it seems like this optimization should make
the query plan do almost the same thing at execution time -- just
slightly more efficiently on average, and much more efficiently in
some individual cases.

It would probably be very hard for the optimizer to model/predict how
much work it can save by using a ScalarArrayOpExpr instead of an
"equivalent" set of bitmap index scans, OR'd together. But it doesn't
necessarily matter -- the only truly critical detail is understanding
the worst case for the transformation optimization.

Yes, I agree with you and I have yet to analyze this.

 It cannot be too
bad (maybe it's ~zero added runtime overhead relative to not doing the
transformation, even?). 

I haven't seen a major performance degradation so far, but to be honest, I have not conducted a detailed analysis on other types of queries other than x=1 or x=2 or x=1 or y=2, etc. As soon as something is known, I will provide the data, it is very interesting to me.

At the same time, nbtree can be clever about
ScalarArrayOpExpr execution at runtime (once that's implemented),
without ever needing to make any kind of up-front commitment to
navigating through the index in any particular way. It's all dynamic,
and can be driven by the actual observed characteristics of the index
structure.

In other words, we don't really need to gamble (in the planner, or at
execution time). We're just keeping our options open in more cases.
(My thinking on these topics was influenced by Goetz Graefe -- "choice
is confusion" [2]).

Unfortunately, when I tried to make a transformation at the stage of index formation, I encountered too incorrect an assessment of the selectivity of relation, which affected the incorrect calculation of the cost and cardinality. I couldn't solve this problem.

My diff (transform_or_v0.diff). I got this result:

CREATE TABLE tenk1 (unique1 int, unique2 int, ten int, hundred int);
insert into tenk1 SELECT x,x,x,x FROM generate_series(1,50000) as x;
CREATE INDEX a_idx1 ON tenk1(unique1);
CREATE INDEX a_idx2 ON tenk1(unique2);
CREATE INDEX a_hundred ON tenk1(hundred);

postgres=# explain analyze
select * from tenk1 a join tenk1 b on  a.unique2 = 3 or a.unique2 = 7 or a.unique1 = 1;                                                      QUERY PLAN                                                      
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Nested Loop  (cost=0.00..15627479.50 rows=1250050000 width=32) (actual time=0.040..75.531 rows=150000 loops=1)   ->  Seq Scan on tenk1 b  (cost=0.00..771.00 rows=50000 width=16) (actual time=0.022..5.467 rows=50000 loops=1)   ->  Materialize  (cost=0.00..1146.01 rows=25001 width=16) (actual time=0.000..0.001 rows=3 loops=50000)         ->  Seq Scan on tenk1 a  (cost=0.00..1021.00 rows=25001 width=16) (actual time=0.011..22.789 rows=3 loops=1)               Filter: ((unique2 = ANY (ARRAY[3, 7])) OR (unique1 = 1))               Rows Removed by Filter: 49997 Planning Time: 0.427 ms Execution Time: 80.027 ms
(8 rows)

The current patch's result:

postgres=# set enable_bitmapscan ='off';
SET
postgres=# explain analyze
select * from tenk1 a join tenk1 b on  a.unique2 = 3 or a.unique2 = 7 or a.unique1 = 1;                                                      QUERY PLAN                                                      
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Nested Loop  (cost=0.00..22247.02 rows=1350000 width=32) (actual time=0.094..373.627 rows=1350000 loops=1)   ->  Seq Scan on tenk1 b  (cost=0.00..2311.00 rows=150000 width=16) (actual time=0.051..14.667 rows=150000 loops=1)   ->  Materialize  (cost=0.00..3061.05 rows=9 width=16) (actual time=0.000..0.001 rows=9 loops=150000)         ->  Seq Scan on tenk1 a  (cost=0.00..3061.00 rows=9 width=16) (actual time=0.026..42.389 rows=9 loops=1)               Filter: ((unique2 = ANY ('{3,7}'::integer[])) OR (unique1 = 1))               Rows Removed by Filter: 149991 Planning Time: 0.414 ms Execution Time: 409.154 ms
(8 rows)

[1] https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/flat/1397.1486598083%40sss.pgh.pa.us#310f974a8dc84478d6d3c70f336807bb
[2] https://sigmodrecord.org/publications/sigmodRecord/2009/pdfs/05_Profiles_Graefe.pdf

Thank you again for the explanations and the material provided. I will carefully study everything as soon as possible and will write if there are any thoughts or if there are ideas about my patch.

-- 
Regards,
Alena Rybakina
Postgres Professional

At the moment, I'm not sure that the constant is the right number for applying transformations, so I'm in search of it, to be honest. I will post my observations on this issue later. If you don't mind, I'll leave the constant equal to 15 for now.

It's hard to predict. Perhaps accounting for time on each benchmark could help decide.

 

I will try to test on JOB [1] (because queries are difficult for the optimizer due to the significant number of joins and correlations contained in the dataset) and
tpcds [2] (the benchmark I noticed contains a sufficient number of queries with "or" expressions).

Sorry, I don't understand well enough what is meant by points "Eliminate unnecessary variables" and "Eliminate unnecessary expressions". Can you explain in more detail?

One example is array_type.

As you can see in v2 and v3 it no longer exists.

 

I get it. Honestly, I was guided by the example of converting "IN" to "ANY" (transformAExprIn), at least the part of the code when we specifically convert the expression to ScalarArrayOpExpr.

Both there and here, we first look for a common type for the collected constants, and if there is one, then we try to find the type for the array structure.

Only I think in my current patch it is also worth returning to the original version in this place, since if it is not found, the ScalarArrayOpExpr generation function will be processed incorrectly and
the request may not be executed at all, referring to the error that it is impossible to determine the type of node (ERROR:  unrecognized node type. )

At the same time we are trying to do this transformation for each group. The group here implies that these are combined "or" expressions on the common left side, and at the same time we consider
only expressions that contain a constant and only equality.

What else should be taken into account is that we are trying to do this processing before forming a BoolExpr expression (if you notice, then after any outcome we call the makeBoolExpr function,
which just forms the "Or" expression, as in the original version, regardless of what type of expressions it combines.

As I said earlier, these are just suggestions.

But thinking about it now, I think they can be classified as bad early optimizations.

1. https://github.com/gregrahn/join-order-benchmark

2. https://github.com/Alena0704/s64da-benchmark-toolkit/tree/master/benchmarks/tpcds

-- 
Regards,
Alena Rybakina
Postgres Professional

Em qui., 29 de jun. de 2023 às 06:56, Alena Rybakina <lena.ribackina@yandex.ru> escreveu:

I apologize for breaks the original thread. In my defense, I can say that I'm new to all this and I'm just learning. I will try to make as few mistakes as possible.

By no means, your work is excellent and deserves all compliments.

Thank you, I will try to work in the same spirit, especially since there is still quite a lot of work left).

Thank you for your feedback.

-- 
Regards,
Alena Rybakina
Postgres Professional

HI, all!

> On 27.06.2023 16:19, Alena Rybakina wrote:
>> Thank you for your feedback, your work is also very interesting and 
>> important, and I will be happy to review it. I learned something new 
>> from your letter, thank you very much for that!
>>
>> I analyzed the buffer consumption when I ran control regression tests 
>> using my patch. diff shows me that there is no difference between the 
>> number of buffer block scans without and using my patch, as far as I 
>> have seen. (regression.diffs)
>>
>>
>> In addition, I analyzed the scheduling and duration of the execution 
>> time of the source code and with my applied patch. I generated 20 
>> billion data from pgbench and plotted the scheduling and execution 
>> time depending on the number of "or" expressions.
>> By runtime, I noticed a clear acceleration for queries when using the 
>> index, but I can't say the same when the index is disabled.
>> At first I turned it off in this way:
>> 1)enable_seqscan='off'
>> 2)enable_indexonlyscan='off'
>> enable_indexscan='off'
>>
>> Unfortunately, it is not yet clear which constant needs to be set 
>> when the transformation needs to be done, I will still study in 
>> detail. (the graph for all this is presented in graph1.svg

I finished comparing the performance of queries with converted or 
expressions and the original ones and found that about 500 "OR" 
expressions have significantly noticeable degradation of execution time, 
both using the index and without it (you can look at 
time_comsuption_with_indexes.png and time_comsuption_without_indexes.html )

The test was performed on the same benchmark database generated by 2 
billion values.

I corrected this constant in the patch.

-- 
Regards,
Alena Rybakina
Postgres Professional

Sorry, I threw off the wrong charts, I'm sending the right ones.

On 05.07.2023 22:39, Alena Rybakina wrote:
> HI, all!
>
>> On 27.06.2023 16:19, Alena Rybakina wrote:
>>> Thank you for your feedback, your work is also very interesting and 
>>> important, and I will be happy to review it. I learned something new 
>>> from your letter, thank you very much for that!
>>>
>>> I analyzed the buffer consumption when I ran control regression 
>>> tests using my patch. diff shows me that there is no difference 
>>> between the number of buffer block scans without and using my patch, 
>>> as far as I have seen. (regression.diffs)
>>>
>>>
>>> In addition, I analyzed the scheduling and duration of the execution 
>>> time of the source code and with my applied patch. I generated 20 
>>> billion data from pgbench and plotted the scheduling and execution 
>>> time depending on the number of "or" expressions.
>>> By runtime, I noticed a clear acceleration for queries when using 
>>> the index, but I can't say the same when the index is disabled.
>>> At first I turned it off in this way:
>>> 1)enable_seqscan='off'
>>> 2)enable_indexonlyscan='off'
>>> enable_indexscan='off'
>>>
>>> Unfortunately, it is not yet clear which constant needs to be set 
>>> when the transformation needs to be done, I will still study in 
>>> detail. (the graph for all this is presented in graph1.svg
>
> I finished comparing the performance of queries with converted or 
> expressions and the original ones and found that about 500 "OR" 
> expressions have significantly noticeable degradation of execution 
> time, both using the index and without it (you can look at 
> time_comsuption_with_indexes.png and 
> time_comsuption_without_indexes.html )
>
> The test was performed on the same benchmark database generated by 2 
> billion values.
>
> I corrected this constant in the patch.
>
-- 
Regards,
Alena Rybakina
Postgres Professional

On 6/7/2023 03:06, Alena Rybakina wrote:
>> I corrected this constant in the patch.
The patch don't apply cleanly: it contains some trailing spaces.

Also, quick glance into the code shows some weak points;
1. transformBoolExprOr should have input type BoolExpr.
2. You can avoid the switch operator at the beginning of the function, 
because you only need one option.
3. Stale comments: RestrictIinfos definitely not exists at this point.
4. I don't know, you really need to copy the expr or not, but it is 
better to do as late, as possible.
5. You assume, that leftop is non-constant and rightop - constant. Why?
6.I doubt about equivalence operator. Someone can invent a custom '=' 
operator with another semantics, than usual. May be better to check 
mergejoinability?
7. I don't know how to confidently identify constant expressions at this 
level. So, I guess, You can only merge here expressions like 
"F(X)=Const", not an 'F(X)=ConstExpression'.

See delta.diff with mentioned changes in attachment.

-- 
regards,
Andrey Lepikhov
Postgres Professional

On 6/7/2023 03:06, Alena Rybakina wrote:
>> The test was performed on the same benchmark database generated by 2 
>> billion values.
>>
>> I corrected this constant in the patch.
In attempt to resolve some issues had mentioned in my previous letter I 
used op_mergejoinable to detect mergejoinability of a clause.
Constant side of the expression is detected by call of 
eval_const_expressions() and check each side on the Const type of node.

See 'diff to diff' in attachment.

-- 
regards,
Andrey Lepikhov
Postgres Professional

Hi! Thank you for your detailed review, your changes have greatly helped 
to improve this patch.

On 06.07.2023 13:20, Andrey Lepikhov wrote:
> On 6/7/2023 03:06, Alena Rybakina wrote:
>>> I corrected this constant in the patch.
> The patch don't apply cleanly: it contains some trailing spaces.
I fixed it.
>
> Also, quick glance into the code shows some weak points;
> 1. transformBoolExprOr should have input type BoolExpr.
Agreed.
> 2. You can avoid the switch operator at the beginning of the function, 
> because you only need one option.
Agreed.
> 3. Stale comments: RestrictIinfos definitely not exists at this point.
Yes, unfortunately, I missed this from the previous version when I tried 
to perform such a transformation at the index creation stage.
> 4. I don't know, you really need to copy the expr or not, but it is 
> better to do as late, as possible.
Yes, I agree with you, copying "expr" is not necessary in this patch
> 5. You assume, that leftop is non-constant and rightop - constant. Why?
Agreed, It was too presumptuous on my part and I agree with your changes.
> 6.I doubt about equivalence operator. Someone can invent a custom '=' 
> operator with another semantics, than usual. May be better to check 
> mergejoinability?
Yes, I agree with you, and I haven't thought about it before. But I 
haven't found any functions to arrange this in PostgreSQL, but using 
mergejoinability turns out to be more beautiful here.
> 7. I don't know how to confidently identify constant expressions at 
> this level. So, I guess, You can only merge here expressions like 
> "F(X)=Const", not an 'F(X)=ConstExpression'.
I see, you can find solution for this case, thank you for this, and I 
think it's reliable enough.

On 07.07.2023 05:43, Andrey Lepikhov wrote:
> On 6/7/2023 03:06, Alena Rybakina wrote:
>>> The test was performed on the same benchmark database generated by 2 
>>> billion values.
>>>
>>> I corrected this constant in the patch.
> In attempt to resolve some issues had mentioned in my previous letter 
> I used op_mergejoinable to detect mergejoinability of a clause.
> Constant side of the expression is detected by call of 
> eval_const_expressions() and check each side on the Const type of node.
>
> See 'diff to diff' in attachment.


I notices you remove condition for checking equal operation.

strcmp(strVal(linitial((arg)->name)), "=") == 0

Firstly, it is noticed me not correct, but a simple example convinced me 
otherwise:

postgres=# explain analyze select x from a where x=1 or x>5 or x<3 or x=2;
                                                QUERY PLAN
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
  Seq Scan on a  (cost=0.00..2291.00 rows=97899 width=4) (actual 
time=0.038..104.168 rows=99000 loops=1)
    Filter: ((x > '5'::numeric) OR (x < '3'::numeric) OR (x = ANY 
('{1,2}'::numeric[])))
    Rows Removed by Filter: 1000
  Planning Time: 9.938 ms
  Execution Time: 113.457 ms
(5 rows)

It surprises me that such check I can write such similar way:

eval_const_expressions(NULL, orqual).


Yes, I see we can remove this code:

bare_orarg = transformExprRecurse(pstate, (Node *)arg);
bare_orarg = coerce_to_boolean(pstate, bare_orarg, "OR");

because we will provide similar manipulation in this:

foreach(l, gentry->consts)
{
       Node       *rexpr = (Node *) lfirst(l);

       rexpr = coerce_to_common_type(pstate, rexpr,
                                                 scalar_type,
                                                 "IN");
      aexprs = lappend(aexprs, rexpr);
}

-- 
Regards,
Alena Rybakina
Postgres Professional

On 7/7/2023 15:20, Alena Rybakina wrote:
> 
> because we will provide similar manipulation in this:
> 
> foreach(l, gentry->consts)
> {
>        Node       *rexpr = (Node *) lfirst(l);
> 
>        rexpr = coerce_to_common_type(pstate, rexpr,
>                                                  scalar_type,
>                                                  "IN");
>       aexprs = lappend(aexprs, rexpr);
> }
I'm not sure that it should be replaced.
In attachment - a bit more corrections to the patch.
The most important change - or_list contains already transformed 
expression subtree. So, I think we don't need to free it at all.

-- 
regards,
Andrey Lepikhov
Postgres Professional

I agreed with the changes. Thank you for your work.

I updated patch and added you to the authors.

I specified Ranier Vilela as a reviewer.

On 10.07.2023 06:12, Andrey Lepikhov wrote:
> On 7/7/2023 15:20, Alena Rybakina wrote:
>>
>> because we will provide similar manipulation in this:
>>
>> foreach(l, gentry->consts)
>> {
>>        Node       *rexpr = (Node *) lfirst(l);
>>
>>        rexpr = coerce_to_common_type(pstate, rexpr,
>>                                                  scalar_type,
>>                                                  "IN");
>>       aexprs = lappend(aexprs, rexpr);
>> }
> I'm not sure that it should be replaced.
> In attachment - a bit more corrections to the patch.
> The most important change - or_list contains already transformed 
> expression subtree. So, I think we don't need to free it at all.
>
-- 
Regards,
Alena Rybakina
Postgres Professional

On 10/7/2023 15:38, Alena Rybakina wrote:
> I agreed with the changes. Thank you for your work.
> 
> I updated patch and added you to the authors.
> 
> I specified Ranier Vilela as a reviewer.
This patch looks much better than earlier. But it definitely needs some 
covering with tests. As a first simple approximation, here you can see 
the result of regression tests, where the transformation limit is set to 
0. See in the attachment some test changes induced by these diffs.

Also, I see some impact of the transformation to other queries:
create_view.out:
(NOT x > z) ----> (x <= z)
inherit.out:
(((a)::text = 'ab'::text) OR ((a)::text = ANY ('{NULL,cd}'::text[])))
to
(((a)::text = ANY ('{NULL,cd}'::text[])) OR ((a)::text = 'ab'::text))

Transformations, mentioned above, are correct, of course. But it can be 
a sign of possible unstable behavior.

-- 
regards,
Andrey Lepikhov
Postgres Professional

Hi!

Em seg., 10 de jul. de 2023 às 09:03, Ranier Vilela <ranier.vf@gmail.com> escreveu:

Hi Alena,

Em seg., 10 de jul. de 2023 às 05:38, Alena Rybakina <lena.ribackina@yandex.ru> escreveu:

I agreed with the changes. Thank you for your work.

I updated patch and added you to the authors.

I specified Ranier Vilela as a reviewer.

Is a good habit when post a new version of the patch, name it v1, v2, v3,etc.

Makes it easy to follow development and references on the thread.

Regarding the last patch.

1. I think that variable const_is_left is not necessary.

You can stick with:

+ if (IsA(get_leftop(orqual), Const))
+ nconst_expr =get_rightop(orqual);

+ const_expr = get_leftop(orqual) ;

+ else if (IsA(get_rightop(orqual), Const))

+ nconst_expr =get_leftop(orqual);

+ const_expr = get_rightop(orqual) ;

+ else
+ {
+ or_list = lappend(or_list, orqual);
+ continue;
+ }

2. Test scalar_type != RECORDOID is more cheaper,

mainly if OidIsValid were a function, we knows that is a macro.

+ if (scalar_type != RECORDOID && OidIsValid(scalar_type))

3. Sorry about wrong tip about array_type, but if really necessary,

better use it.

+ newa->element_typeid = scalar_type;
+ newa->array_typeid = array_type;

4. Is a good habit, call free last, to avoid somebody accidentally using it.

+ or_list = lappend(or_list, gentry->expr);
+ list_free(gentry->consts);
+ continue;

No, this is not necessary, because we add the original expression in these places to the resulting list and later
we will not use the list of constants for this group at all, otherwise it would be an error.

-- 
Regards,
Alena Rybakina
Postgres Professional

Em ter., 11 de jul. de 2023 às 09:29, Alena Rybakina <lena.ribackina@yandex.ru> escreveu:

Hi!

On 10.07.2023 15:15, Ranier Vilela wrote:

Em seg., 10 de jul. de 2023 às 09:03, Ranier Vilela <ranier.vf@gmail.com> escreveu:

Hi Alena,

Em seg., 10 de jul. de 2023 às 05:38, Alena Rybakina <lena.ribackina@yandex.ru> escreveu:

I agreed with the changes. Thank you for your work.

I updated patch and added you to the authors.

I specified Ranier Vilela as a reviewer.

Is a good habit when post a new version of the patch, name it v1, v2, v3,etc.

Makes it easy to follow development and references on the thread.

Sorry, I fixed it.

Regarding the last patch.

1. I think that variable const_is_left is not necessary.

You can stick with:

+ if (IsA(get_leftop(orqual), Const))
+ nconst_expr =get_rightop(orqual);

+ const_expr = get_leftop(orqual) ;

+ else if (IsA(get_rightop(orqual), Const))

+ nconst_expr =get_leftop(orqual);

+ const_expr = get_rightop(orqual) ;

+ else
+ {
+ or_list = lappend(or_list, orqual);
+ continue;
+ }

Agreed.

You missed in removing the declaration

- bool const_is_left = true;

.

2. Test scalar_type != RECORDOID is more cheaper,

mainly if OidIsValid were a function, we knows that is a macro.

+ if (scalar_type != RECORDOID && OidIsValid(scalar_type))

Is it safe? Maybe we should first make sure that it can be checked on RECORDOID at all?

Yes it's safe, because && connector.

But you can leave as is in v5.

-- 
Regards,
Alena Rybakina
Postgres Professional

Hi!

On 11.07.2023 11:47, Andrey Lepikhov wrote:
> This patch looks much better than earlier. But it definitely needs 
> some covering with tests. As a first simple approximation, here you 
> can see the result of regression tests, where the transformation limit 
> is set to 0. See in the attachment some test changes induced by these 
> diffs.
>
Yes, I think so too. I also added some tests. I have attached an 
additional diff-5.diff where you can see the changes.
> Also, I see some impact of the transformation to other queries:
> create_view.out:
> (NOT x > z) ----> (x <= z)
> inherit.out:
> (((a)::text = 'ab'::text) OR ((a)::text = ANY ('{NULL,cd}'::text[])))
> to -
> (((a)::text = ANY ('{NULL,cd}'::text[])) OR ((a)::text = 'ab'::text))
>
> Transformations, mentioned above, are correct, of course. But it can 
> be a sign of possible unstable behavior.
>
I think it can be made more stable if we always add the existing 
transformed expressions first, and then the original ones, or vice versa. T

o do this, we will need two more lists, I think, and then we can combine 
them, where the elements of the second will be written to the end of the 
first.

But I suppose that this may not be the only unstable behavior - I 
suppose we need sorting result elements on the left side, what do you think?

-- 
Regards,
Alena Rybakina
Postgres Professional

Hi, all!

I sent a patch to commitfest and noticed that the authors and the 
reviewer were incorrectly marked.

Sorry about that. I fixed it and sent the current version of the patch.

-- 
Regards,
Alena Rybakina
Postgres Professional

On Thu, Jun 29, 2023 at 2:32 AM Alena Rybakina <lena.ribackina@yandex.ru> wrote:
> Hi! I'm sorry I didn't answer you right away, I was too busy with work.

Same for me, this time. I was busy working on my patch, which I
finally posted yesterday.

> To be honest, I didn't think about the fact that my optimization can help eliminate duplicates before reading the
databefore. 

I'm not surprised that you didn't specifically think of that, because
it's very subtle.

> I am still only in the process of familiarizing myself with the thread [1] (reference from your letter), but I have
alreadyseen that there are problems related, for example, to when "or" expressions refer to the parent element. 

I didn't intend to imply that you might have the same problem here. I
just meant that OR optimizations can have problems with duplicate
elimination, in general. I suspect that your patch doesn't have that
problem, because you are performing a transformation of one kind of OR
into another kind of OR.

> I think, I would face the similar problems if I complicate the current code, for example, so that not only or
expressionsstanding on the same level are written in any, but also on different ones without violating the logic of the
priorityof executing operators. 

I can't say that I am particularly experienced in this general area --
I have never tried to formally reason about how two different
statements are equivalent. It just hasn't been something that I've
needed to have a totally rigorous understanding of up until now. But
my recent patch changes that. Now I need to study this area to make
sure that I have a truly rigorous understanding.

Jeff Davis suggested that I read "Logic and Databases", by C.J. Date.
So now I have some homework to do.

> Unfortunately, when I tried to make a transformation at the stage of index formation, I encountered too incorrect an
assessmentof the selectivity of relation, which affected the incorrect calculation of the cost and cardinality. 

It's not surprising that a weird shift in the plan chosen by the
optimizer is seen with some random test case, as a result of this
added transformation. Even changes that are 100% strictly better (e.g.
changes in a selectivity estimation function that is somehow
guaranteed to be more accurate in all cases) might do that. Here is a
recent example of that with another patch, involving a bitmap OR:

https://postgr.es/m/CAH2-WznCDK9n2tZ6j_-iLN563_ePuC3NzP6VSVTL6jHzs6nRuQ@mail.gmail.com

This example was *not* a regression, if you go by conventional
measures. It was merely a less robust plan than the bitmap OR plan,
because it didn't pass down both columns as index quals.

BTW, there are various restrictions on the sort order of SAOPs that
you might want to try to familiarize yourself with. I describe them
(perhaps not very clearly) here:

https://postgr.es/m/CAH2-Wz=ksvN_sjcnD1+Bt-WtifRA5ok48aDYnq3pkKhxgMQpcw@mail.gmail.com

Currently, the optimizer doesn't recognize multi-column indexes with
SAOPs on every column as having a valid sort order, except on the
first column. It seems possible that that has consequences for your
patch. (I'm really only guessing, though; don't trust anything that I
say about the optimizer too much.)

--
Peter Geoghegan

Hi!

On 26.07.2023 02:47, Peter Geoghegan wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 29, 2023 at 2:32 AM Alena Rybakina <lena.ribackina@yandex.ru> wrote:
>> Hi! I'm sorry I didn't answer you right away, I was too busy with work.
> Same for me, this time. I was busy working on my patch, which I
> finally posted yesterday.
I'm glad to hear it, I've seen your thread ("Optimizing nbtree 
ScalarArrayOp execution, allowing multi-column ordered scans, skip 
scan"), but, unfortunately, I didn't have enough time to read it. I'll 
review it soon!
>> To be honest, I didn't think about the fact that my optimization can help eliminate duplicates before reading the
databefore.
 
> I'm not surprised that you didn't specifically think of that, because
> it's very subtle.
>
>> I am still only in the process of familiarizing myself with the thread [1] (reference from your letter), but I have
alreadyseen that there are problems related, for example, to when "or" expressions refer to the parent element.
 
> I didn't intend to imply that you might have the same problem here. I
> just meant that OR optimizations can have problems with duplicate
> elimination, in general. I suspect that your patch doesn't have that
> problem, because you are performing a transformation of one kind of OR
> into another kind of OR.

Yes, you are right, but I studied this topic and two other sources to 
accumulate my knowledge. It was an exciting experience for me)

I was especially inspired after studying the interview with Goetz Graf 
[2], his life experience is the most inspiring, and from this article I 
was able to get a broad understanding of the field of databases:
current problems, future development, how it works... Thank you for the 
recommendation.

I discovered for myself that the idea described in the article [1] is 
similar to the idea of representing grouped data in OLAP cubes, and 
also, if I saw correctly, an algorithm like depth-first search is used 
there, but for indexes.

I think it really helps to speed up the search with similar deep 
filtering compared to cluster indexes, but do we have cases where we 
don't use this algorithm because it takes longer than an usual index?
I thought about the situation with wide indexes (with a lot of multiple 
columns) and having a lot of filtering predicates for them.
But I'm not sure about this, so it seems to me that this is a problem of 
improper use of indexes rather.
>> I think, I would face the similar problems if I complicate the current code, for example, so that not only or
expressionsstanding on the same level are written in any, but also on different ones without violating the logic of the
priorityof executing operators.
 
> I can't say that I am particularly experienced in this general area --
> I have never tried to formally reason about how two different
> statements are equivalent. It just hasn't been something that I've
> needed to have a totally rigorous understanding of up until now. But
> my recent patch changes that. Now I need to study this area to make
> sure that I have a truly rigorous understanding.
>
> Jeff Davis suggested that I read "Logic and Databases", by C.J. Date.
> So now I have some homework to do.
I'll read this book too. Maybe I can finish work with the knowledge I 
got from there. Thank you for sharing!
>> Unfortunately, when I tried to make a transformation at the stage of index formation, I encountered too incorrect an
assessmentof the selectivity of relation, which affected the incorrect calculation of the cost and cardinality.
 
> It's not surprising that a weird shift in the plan chosen by the
> optimizer is seen with some random test case, as a result of this
> added transformation. Even changes that are 100% strictly better (e.g.
> changes in a selectivity estimation function that is somehow
> guaranteed to be more accurate in all cases) might do that. Here is a
> recent example of that with another patch, involving a bitmap OR:
>
> https://postgr.es/m/CAH2-WznCDK9n2tZ6j_-iLN563_ePuC3NzP6VSVTL6jHzs6nRuQ@mail.gmail.com
At first, this surprised me very much. It took time to find a suitable 
place to implement the transformation.

I have looked through this thread many times, I will study it in more 
detail .
> This example was *not* a regression, if you go by conventional
> measures. It was merely a less robust plan than the bitmap OR plan,
> because it didn't pass down both columns as index quals.
>
> BTW, there are various restrictions on the sort order of SAOPs that
> you might want to try to familiarize yourself with. I describe them
> (perhaps not very clearly) here:
>
> https://postgr.es/m/CAH2-Wz=ksvN_sjcnD1+Bt-WtifRA5ok48aDYnq3pkKhxgMQpcw@mail.gmail.com
Thank you! Yes, I'll study it too)
> Currently, the optimizer doesn't recognize multi-column indexes with
> SAOPs on every column as having a valid sort order, except on the
> first column. It seems possible that that has consequences for your
> patch. (I'm really only guessing, though; don't trust anything that I
> say about the optimizer too much.)
>
Honestly, I couldn't understand your concerns very well, could you 
describe it in more detail?

1. https://vldb.org/conf/1995/P710.PDF

2. 
https://sigmodrecord.org/publications/sigmodRecord/2009/pdfs/05_Profiles_Graefe.pdf

-- 
Regards,
Alena Rybakina
Postgres Professional

On Wed, Jul 26, 2023 at 6:30 PM Alena Rybakina <lena.ribackina@yandex.ru> wrote:
> > I didn't intend to imply that you might have the same problem here. I
> > just meant that OR optimizations can have problems with duplicate
> > elimination, in general. I suspect that your patch doesn't have that
> > problem, because you are performing a transformation of one kind of OR
> > into another kind of OR.
>
> Yes, you are right, but I studied this topic and two other sources to
> accumulate my knowledge. It was an exciting experience for me)

Cool! Yeah, a lot of the value with these sorts of things comes from
the way that they can interact with each other. This is hard to
describe exactly, but still important.

> I was especially inspired after studying the interview with Goetz Graf
> [2], his life experience is the most inspiring, and from this article I
> was able to get a broad understanding of the field of databases:
> current problems, future development, how it works... Thank you for the
> recommendation.

I also think that his perspective is very interesting.

> I think it really helps to speed up the search with similar deep
> filtering compared to cluster indexes, but do we have cases where we
> don't use this algorithm because it takes longer than an usual index?
> I thought about the situation with wide indexes (with a lot of multiple
> columns) and having a lot of filtering predicates for them.

I think that it should be possible for the optimizer to only use
multi-column SAOP index paths when there is at least likely to be some
small advantage -- that's definitely my goal. Importantly, we may not
really need to accurately model the costs where the new approach turns
out to be much faster. The only essential thing is that we avoid cases
where the new approach is much slower than the old approach. Which is
possible (in at least some cases) by making the runtime behavior
adaptive.

The best decision that the planner can make may be no decision at all.
Better to wait until runtime where at all possible, since that gives
us the latest and most accurate picture of things.

> But I'm not sure about this, so it seems to me that this is a problem of
> improper use of indexes rather.

It's hard to say how true that is.

Certainly, workloads similar to the TPC-DS benchmark kinda need
something like MDAM. It's just not practical to have enough indexes to
support every possible query -- the benchmark is deliberately designed
to have unpredictable, hard-to-optimize access paths. It seems to
require having fewer, more general indexes that can support
multi-dimensional access reasonably efficiently.

Of course, with OLTP it's much more likely that the workload will have
predictable access patterns. That makes having exactly the right
indexes much more practical. So maybe you're right there. But, I still
see a lot of value in a design that is as forgiving as possible. Users
really like that kind of thing in my experience.

> > Currently, the optimizer doesn't recognize multi-column indexes with
> > SAOPs on every column as having a valid sort order, except on the
> > first column. It seems possible that that has consequences for your
> > patch. (I'm really only guessing, though; don't trust anything that I
> > say about the optimizer too much.)
> >
> Honestly, I couldn't understand your concerns very well, could you
> describe it in more detail?

Well, I'm not sure if there is any possible scenario where the
transformation from your patch makes it possible to go from an access
path that has a valid sort order (usually because there is an
underlying index scan) into an access path that doesn't. In fact, the
opposite situation seems more likely (which is good news) --
especially if you assume that my own patch is also present.

Going from a bitmap OR (which cannot return sorted output) to a
multi-column SAOP index scan (which now can) may have significant
value in some specific circumstances. Most obviously, it's really
useful when it enables us to feed tuples into a GroupAggregate without
a separate sort step, and without a hash aggregate (that's why I see
value in combining your patch with my own patch). You just need to be
careful about allowing the opposite situation to take place.

More generally, there is a need to think about strange second order
effects. We want to be open to useful second order effects that make
query execution much faster in some specific context, while avoiding
harmful second order effects. Intuitively, I think that it should be
possible to do this with the transformations performed by your patch.

In other words, "helpful serendipity" is an important advantage, while
"harmful anti-serendipity" is what we really want to avoid. Ideally by
making the harmful cases impossible "by construction".

--
Peter Geoghegan

Hi!

>> I think it really helps to speed up the search with similar deep
>> filtering compared to cluster indexes, but do we have cases where we
>> don't use this algorithm because it takes longer than an usual index?
>> I thought about the situation with wide indexes (with a lot of multiple
>> columns) and having a lot of filtering predicates for them.
> I think that it should be possible for the optimizer to only use
> multi-column SAOP index paths when there is at least likely to be some
> small advantage -- that's definitely my goal. Importantly, we may not
> really need to accurately model the costs where the new approach turns
> out to be much faster. The only essential thing is that we avoid cases
> where the new approach is much slower than the old approach. Which is
> possible (in at least some cases) by making the runtime behavior
> adaptive.
>
> The best decision that the planner can make may be no decision at all.
> Better to wait until runtime where at all possible, since that gives
> us the latest and most accurate picture of things.
>
>> But I'm not sure about this, so it seems to me that this is a problem of
>> improper use of indexes rather.
> It's hard to say how true that is.
>
> Certainly, workloads similar to the TPC-DS benchmark kinda need
> something like MDAM. It's just not practical to have enough indexes to
> support every possible query -- the benchmark is deliberately designed
> to have unpredictable, hard-to-optimize access paths. It seems to
> require having fewer, more general indexes that can support
> multi-dimensional access reasonably efficiently.
>
> Of course, with OLTP it's much more likely that the workload will have
> predictable access patterns. That makes having exactly the right
> indexes much more practical. So maybe you're right there. But, I still
> see a lot of value in a design that is as forgiving as possible. Users
> really like that kind of thing in my experience.
I tend to agree with you, but a runtime estimate cannot give us an 
accurate picture when using indexes correctly or
any other optimizations due to the unstable state of the environment in 
which the query is executed.
I believe that a more complex analysis is needed here.
>>> Currently, the optimizer doesn't recognize multi-column indexes with
>>> SAOPs on every column as having a valid sort order, except on the
>>> first column. It seems possible that that has consequences for your
>>> patch. (I'm really only guessing, though; don't trust anything that I
>>> say about the optimizer too much.)
>>>
>> Honestly, I couldn't understand your concerns very well, could you
>> describe it in more detail?
> Well, I'm not sure if there is any possible scenario where the
> transformation from your patch makes it possible to go from an access
> path that has a valid sort order (usually because there is an
> underlying index scan) into an access path that doesn't. In fact, the
> opposite situation seems more likely (which is good news) --
> especially if you assume that my own patch is also present.
>
> Going from a bitmap OR (which cannot return sorted output) to a
> multi-column SAOP index scan (which now can) may have significant
> value in some specific circumstances. Most obviously, it's really
> useful when it enables us to feed tuples into a GroupAggregate without
> a separate sort step, and without a hash aggregate (that's why I see
> value in combining your patch with my own patch). You just need to be
> careful about allowing the opposite situation to take place.
>
> More generally, there is a need to think about strange second order
> effects. We want to be open to useful second order effects that make
> query execution much faster in some specific context, while avoiding
> harmful second order effects. Intuitively, I think that it should be
> possible to do this with the transformations performed by your patch.
>
> In other words, "helpful serendipity" is an important advantage, while
> "harmful anti-serendipity" is what we really want to avoid. Ideally by
> making the harmful cases impossible "by construction".
>
I noticed only one thing there: when we have unsorted array values in 
SOAP, the query takes longer than
when it has a sorted array. I'll double-check it just in case and write 
about the results later.

I am also testing some experience with multi-column indexes using SAOPs.

-- 
Regards,
Alena Rybakina
Postgres Professional

On Mon, Jul 31, 2023 at 9:38 AM Alena Rybakina <lena.ribackina@yandex.ru> wrote:
> I noticed only one thing there: when we have unsorted array values in
> SOAP, the query takes longer than
> when it has a sorted array. I'll double-check it just in case and write
> about the results later.

I would expect the B-Tree preprocessing by _bt_preprocess_array_keys()
to be very slightly faster when the query is written with presorted,
duplicate-free constants. Sorting is faster when you don't really have
to sort. However, I would not expect the effect to be significant
enough to matter, except perhaps in very extreme cases.
Although...some of the cases you care about are very extreme cases.

> I am also testing some experience with multi-column indexes using SAOPs.

Have you thought about a similar transformation for when the row
constructor syntax happens to have been used?

Consider a query like the following, against a table with a composite
index on (a, b):

select * from multi_test where ( a, b ) in (( 1, 1 ), ( 2, 1 ));

This query will get a BitmapOr based plan that's similar to the plans
that OR-based queries affected by your transformation patch get today,
on HEAD.  However, this equivalent spelling has the potential to be
significantly faster:

select * from multi_test where a = any('{1,2}') and b = 1;

(Of course, this is more likely to be true with my nbtree SAOP patch in place.)

Note that we currently won't use RowCompareExpr in many simple cases
where the row constructor syntax has been used. For example, a query
like this:

select * from multi_test where ( a, b ) = (( 2, 1 ));

This case already involves a transformation that is roughly comparable
to the one you're working on now. We'll remove the RowCompareExpr
during parsing. It'll be as if my example row constructor equality
query was written this way instead:

select * from multi_test where a = 2 and b = 1;

This can be surprisingly important, when combined with other things,
in more realistic examples.

The nbtree code has special knowledge of RowCompareExpr that makes the
rules for comparing index tuples different to those from other kinds
of index scans. However, due to the RowCompareExpr transformation
process I just described, we don't need to rely on that specialized
nbtree code when the row constructor syntax is used with a simple
equality clause -- which is what makes the normalization process have
real value. If the nbtree code cannot see RowCompareExpr index quals
then it cannot have this problem in the first place. In general it is
useful to "normalize to conjunctive normal form" when it might allow
scan key preprocessing in the nbtree code to come up with a much
faster approach to executing the scan.

It's easier to understand what I mean by showing a simple example. The
nbtree preprocessing code is smart enough to recognize that the
following query doesn't really need to do any work, due to having
quals that it recognizes as contradictory (it can set so->qual_okay to
false for unsatisfiable quals):

select * from multi_test where ( a, b ) = (( 2, 1 )) and a = -1;

However, it is not smart enough to perform the same trick if we change
one small detail with the query:

select * from multi_test where ( a, b ) >= (( 2, 1 )) and a = -1;

Ideally, the optimizer would canonicalize/normalize everything in a
way that made all of the nbtree preprocessing optimizations work just
as well, without introducing any new special cases. Obviously, there
is no reason why we can't perform the same trick with the second
variant. (Note also that the nbtree preprocessing code can be smart
about redundant quals, not just contradictory quals, so it matters
more than it may appear from this simple, unrealistic example of
mine.)

While these similar RowCompareExpr transformations are at least
somewhat important, that's not really why I bring them up now. I am
pointing them out now because I think that it might help you to
develop a more complete mental model of these transformations.
Ideally, your initial approach will generalize to other situations
later on. So it's worth considering the relationship between this
existing RowCompareExpr transformation, and the one that you're
working on currently. Plus other, future transformations.

This example might also give you some appreciation of why my SAOP
patch is confused about when we need to do normalization/safety
checks. Some things seem necessary when generating index paths in the
optimizer. Other things seem necessary during preprocessing, in the
nbtree code, at the start of the index scan. Unfortunately, it's not
obvious to me where the right place is to deal with each aspect of
setting up multi-column SAOP index quals. My mental model is very
incomplete.

--
Peter Geoghegan

Peter, I'm very glad to hear that you're researching this!

Will this include skip-scan optimizations for OR or IN predicates, or when the number of distinct values in a leading
non-constantindex column(s) is sufficiently small? e.g. suppose there is an ORDER BY b, and WHERE clause predicates (a
=1 AND b = 5) OR (c > 12 AND b BETWEEN 100 AND 200).  Then a single index scan on an index with leading column b could
visitb = 5, and then the range b from 100:200, and deliver the rows in the order requested.  Or if the predicate is (a
=1 AND b = 5) OR (c LIKE 'XYZ' AND b < 12), then you can scan just b < 12.  Or if the index is defined on (a, b) and
youknow that b = 100, and that there are only 4 distinct values of column a, then you could skip each distinct value of
awhere b = 100, and so on.  
 

If you have an ORDER BY clause and a lower and upper bound on the first column of the ORDER BY list, you have a
potentialto reduce search effort versus a full index scan, even when that upper and lower bound needs to be derived
froma complex predicate.
 

Of course, if you have an IN list you can either skip to the distinct values listed or scan the entire index, depending
onestimated cost.
 

    /Jim F

On 8/1/23, 3:43 PM, "Peter Geoghegan" <pg@bowt.ie <mailto:pg@bowt.ie>> wrote:


CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you can
confirmthe sender and know the content is safe.
 






On Mon, Jul 31, 2023 at 9:38 AM Alena Rybakina <lena.ribackina@yandex.ru <mailto:lena.ribackina@yandex.ru>> wrote:
> I noticed only one thing there: when we have unsorted array values in
> SOAP, the query takes longer than
> when it has a sorted array. I'll double-check it just in case and write
> about the results later.


I would expect the B-Tree preprocessing by _bt_preprocess_array_keys()
to be very slightly faster when the query is written with presorted,
duplicate-free constants. Sorting is faster when you don't really have
to sort. However, I would not expect the effect to be significant
enough to matter, except perhaps in very extreme cases.
Although...some of the cases you care about are very extreme cases.


> I am also testing some experience with multi-column indexes using SAOPs.


Have you thought about a similar transformation for when the row
constructor syntax happens to have been used?


Consider a query like the following, against a table with a composite
index on (a, b):


select * from multi_test where ( a, b ) in (( 1, 1 ), ( 2, 1 ));


This query will get a BitmapOr based plan that's similar to the plans
that OR-based queries affected by your transformation patch get today,
on HEAD. However, this equivalent spelling has the potential to be
significantly faster:


select * from multi_test where a = any('{1,2}') and b = 1;


(Of course, this is more likely to be true with my nbtree SAOP patch in place.)


Note that we currently won't use RowCompareExpr in many simple cases
where the row constructor syntax has been used. For example, a query
like this:


select * from multi_test where ( a, b ) = (( 2, 1 ));


This case already involves a transformation that is roughly comparable
to the one you're working on now. We'll remove the RowCompareExpr
during parsing. It'll be as if my example row constructor equality
query was written this way instead:


select * from multi_test where a = 2 and b = 1;


This can be surprisingly important, when combined with other things,
in more realistic examples.


The nbtree code has special knowledge of RowCompareExpr that makes the
rules for comparing index tuples different to those from other kinds
of index scans. However, due to the RowCompareExpr transformation
process I just described, we don't need to rely on that specialized
nbtree code when the row constructor syntax is used with a simple
equality clause -- which is what makes the normalization process have
real value. If the nbtree code cannot see RowCompareExpr index quals
then it cannot have this problem in the first place. In general it is
useful to "normalize to conjunctive normal form" when it might allow
scan key preprocessing in the nbtree code to come up with a much
faster approach to executing the scan.


It's easier to understand what I mean by showing a simple example. The
nbtree preprocessing code is smart enough to recognize that the
following query doesn't really need to do any work, due to having
quals that it recognizes as contradictory (it can set so->qual_okay to
false for unsatisfiable quals):


select * from multi_test where ( a, b ) = (( 2, 1 )) and a = -1;


However, it is not smart enough to perform the same trick if we change
one small detail with the query:


select * from multi_test where ( a, b ) >= (( 2, 1 )) and a = -1;


Ideally, the optimizer would canonicalize/normalize everything in a
way that made all of the nbtree preprocessing optimizations work just
as well, without introducing any new special cases. Obviously, there
is no reason why we can't perform the same trick with the second
variant. (Note also that the nbtree preprocessing code can be smart
about redundant quals, not just contradictory quals, so it matters
more than it may appear from this simple, unrealistic example of
mine.)


While these similar RowCompareExpr transformations are at least
somewhat important, that's not really why I bring them up now. I am
pointing them out now because I think that it might help you to
develop a more complete mental model of these transformations.
Ideally, your initial approach will generalize to other situations
later on. So it's worth considering the relationship between this
existing RowCompareExpr transformation, and the one that you're
working on currently. Plus other, future transformations.


This example might also give you some appreciation of why my SAOP
patch is confused about when we need to do normalization/safety
checks. Some things seem necessary when generating index paths in the
optimizer. Other things seem necessary during preprocessing, in the
nbtree code, at the start of the index scan. Unfortunately, it's not
obvious to me where the right place is to deal with each aspect of
setting up multi-column SAOP index quals. My mental model is very
incomplete.


--
Peter Geoghegan

Jim,

On Tue, Aug 1, 2023 at 1:11 PM Finnerty, Jim <jfinnert@amazon.com> wrote:
> Peter, I'm very glad to hear that you're researching this!

Glad to hear it!

> Will this include skip-scan optimizations for OR or IN predicates, or when the number of distinct values in a leading
non-constantindex column(s) is sufficiently small? 

Yes -- though perhaps not in the first iteration.

As I go into on the thread associated with my own patch [1], my
initial goal is to support efficient execution of multiple IN() lists
for multiple columns from the same index, all while preserving index
sort order on output, and avoiding a separate duplicate elimination
step. Some of the most compelling cases for these MDAM techniques
involve GroupAggregates, ORDER BY ... LIMIT, and DISTINCT -- I
understand the importance of making the index scan appear to be a
conventional index scan to the optimizer.

> If you have an ORDER BY clause and a lower and upper bound on the first column of the ORDER BY list, you have a
potentialto reduce search effort versus a full index scan, even when that upper and lower bound needs to be derived
froma complex predicate. 

It sounds like your example is an attempt to ascertain whether or not
my design considers the need to convert complicated predicates into
disjuncts that can be executed as if by one single index scan, via CNF
-> DNF transformations/preprocessing. That is certainly the plan, at
least medium term -- I fully expect to be able to combine all of these
techniques together, in ways that continue to work even with very
complicated predicates. Like the really hairy example from the MDAM
paper, or like your example.

There are already some nbtree scan key preprocessing steps a little
like the ones considered by the MDAM paper. These steps eliminate
redundant and contradictory quals -- but they weren't specifically
written with the very general MDAM DNF design requirements in mind.
Plus there are already at least some transformations like the one that
Alena is working on in the patch discussed on this thread -- these
were also not written with MDAM stuff in mind.

A major goal of mine for this project in the short term is to come up
with a very general design. I must reconcile all this stuff, somehow
or other, so that these very complicated cases will work just as well
as simpler and more obvious cases. I really hate special cases.

> Of course, if you have an IN list you can either skip to the distinct values listed or scan the entire index,
dependingon estimated cost. 

Actually, I think that it should be possible to decide on how to skip
dynamically, without needing an up-front decision around skipping from
the optimizer. In other words, the scans can skip using an adaptive
strategy. This is feasible provided I can make the overhead of a
dynamic/adaptive approach negligible.  When it turns out that a full
index scan is appropriate, we'll just end up doing it that way at
runtime.

Nothing stops a given scan from needing to do skip a great deal in the
first half of an index, while scanning everything in the second half
of the index. Obviously, a static choice won't do well there, since it
works at the level of the whole scan/index, which seems like the wrong
framing to me. (Of course we'll still need to model skipping stuff in
the planner -- just not so that we can decide between two index paths
that are essentially identical, that should just be one index path.)

[1] https://postgr.es/m/CAH2-Wz=ksvN_sjcnD1+Bt-WtifRA5ok48aDYnq3pkKhxgMQpcw@mail.gmail.com
--
Peter Geoghegan

I fixed an error that caused the current optimization not to work with 
prepared queries. I added a test to catch similar cases in the future.
I have attached a patch.

On 01.08.2023 22:42, Peter Geoghegan wrote:
> On Mon, Jul 31, 2023 at 9:38 AM Alena Rybakina <lena.ribackina@yandex.ru> wrote:
>> I noticed only one thing there: when we have unsorted array values in
>> SOAP, the query takes longer than
>> when it has a sorted array. I'll double-check it just in case and write
>> about the results later.
> I would expect the B-Tree preprocessing by _bt_preprocess_array_keys()
> to be very slightly faster when the query is written with presorted,
> duplicate-free constants. Sorting is faster when you don't really have
> to sort. However, I would not expect the effect to be significant
> enough to matter, except perhaps in very extreme cases.
> Although...some of the cases you care about are very extreme cases.
I tested an optimization to compare execution time and scheduling with 
sorting, shuffling, and reverse sorting constants in the simple case and
I didn't notice any significant changes (compare_sorted.png).
(I used a database with 100 million values generated by pgbench).
>> I am also testing some experience with multi-column indexes using SAOPs.
> Have you thought about a similar transformation for when the row
> constructor syntax happens to have been used?
>
> Consider a query like the following, against a table with a composite
> index on (a, b):
>
> select * from multi_test where ( a, b ) in (( 1, 1 ), ( 2, 1 ));
>
> This query will get a BitmapOr based plan that's similar to the plans
> that OR-based queries affected by your transformation patch get today,
> on HEAD.  However, this equivalent spelling has the potential to be
> significantly faster:
>
> select * from multi_test where a = any('{1,2}') and b = 1;
>
> (Of course, this is more likely to be true with my nbtree SAOP patch in place.)
No, I haven't thought about it yet. I studied the example and it would 
really be nice to add optimization here. I didn't notice any problems 
with its implementation. I also have an obvious example with the "or" 
operator, for example
, select * from multi_test, where (a, b ) = ( 1, 1 ) or (a, b ) = ( 2, 1 
) ...;

Although I think such a case will be used less often.

Thank you for the example, I think I understand better why our patches 
help each other, but I will review your patch again.

I tried another example to see the lack of optimization in the pgbench 
database, but I also created an additional index:

create index ind1 on pgbench_accounts(aid,bid);

test_db=# explain analyze select * from pgbench_accounts where (aid, 
bid) in ((2,1), (2,2), (2,3), (3,3));
                                                              QUERY PLAN

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
  Bitmap Heap Scan on pgbench_accounts  (cost=17.73..33.66 rows=1 
width=97) (actual time=0.125..0.133 rows=1 loops=1)
    Recheck Cond: ((aid = 2) OR (aid = 2) OR (aid = 2) OR (aid = 3))
    Filter: (((aid = 2) AND (bid = 1)) OR ((aid = 2) AND (bid = 2)) OR 
((aid = 2) AND (bid = 3)) OR ((aid = 3) AND (bid = 3)))
    Rows Removed by Filter: 1
    Heap Blocks: exact=1
    ->  BitmapOr  (cost=17.73..17.73 rows=4 width=0) (actual 
time=0.100..0.102 rows=0 loops=1)
          ->  Bitmap Index Scan on pgbench_accounts_pkey 
(cost=0.00..4.43 rows=1 width=0) (actual time=0.036..0.037 rows=1 loops=1)
                Index Cond: (aid = 2)
          ->  Bitmap Index Scan on pgbench_accounts_pkey 
(cost=0.00..4.43 rows=1 width=0) (actual time=0.021..0.022 rows=1 loops=1)
                Index Cond: (aid = 2)
          ->  Bitmap Index Scan on pgbench_accounts_pkey 
(cost=0.00..4.43 rows=1 width=0) (actual time=0.021..0.021 rows=1 loops=1)
                Index Cond: (aid = 2)
          ->  Bitmap Index Scan on pgbench_accounts_pkey 
(cost=0.00..4.43 rows=1 width=0) (actual time=0.019..0.020 rows=1 loops=1)
                Index Cond: (aid = 3)
  Planning Time: 0.625 ms
  Execution Time: 0.227 ms
(16 rows)

I think such optimization would be useful here: aid =2 and bid in (1,2) 
or (aid,bid)=((3,3))

> Note that we currently won't use RowCompareExpr in many simple cases
> where the row constructor syntax has been used. For example, a query
> like this:
>
> select * from multi_test where ( a, b ) = (( 2, 1 ));
>
> This case already involves a transformation that is roughly comparable
> to the one you're working on now. We'll remove the RowCompareExpr
> during parsing. It'll be as if my example row constructor equality
> query was written this way instead:
>
> select * from multi_test where a = 2 and b = 1;
>
> This can be surprisingly important, when combined with other things,
> in more realistic examples.
>
> The nbtree code has special knowledge of RowCompareExpr that makes the
> rules for comparing index tuples different to those from other kinds
> of index scans. However, due to the RowCompareExpr transformation
> process I just described, we don't need to rely on that specialized
> nbtree code when the row constructor syntax is used with a simple
> equality clause -- which is what makes the normalization process have
> real value. If the nbtree code cannot see RowCompareExpr index quals
> then it cannot have this problem in the first place. In general it is
> useful to "normalize to conjunctive normal form" when it might allow
> scan key preprocessing in the nbtree code to come up with a much
> faster approach to executing the scan.
>
> It's easier to understand what I mean by showing a simple example. The
> nbtree preprocessing code is smart enough to recognize that the
> following query doesn't really need to do any work, due to having
> quals that it recognizes as contradictory (it can set so->qual_okay to
> false for unsatisfiable quals):
>
> select * from multi_test where ( a, b ) = (( 2, 1 )) and a = -1;
>
> However, it is not smart enough to perform the same trick if we change
> one small detail with the query:
>
> select * from multi_test where ( a, b ) >= (( 2, 1 )) and a = -1;

Yes, I have run the examples and I see it.

((ROW(aid, bid) >= ROW(2, 1)) AND (aid = '-1'::integer))

As I see it, we can implement such a transformation:

'( a, b ) >= (( 2, 1 )) and a = -1'     ->    'aid >= 2 and bid >= 1 and 
aid =-1'

It seems to me the most difficult thing is to notice problematic cases 
where the transformations are incorrect, but I think it can be implemented.

> Ideally, the optimizer would canonicalize/normalize everything in a
> way that made all of the nbtree preprocessing optimizations work just
> as well, without introducing any new special cases. Obviously, there
> is no reason why we can't perform the same trick with the second
> variant. (Note also that the nbtree preprocessing code can be smart
> about redundant quals, not just contradictory quals, so it matters
> more than it may appear from this simple, unrealistic example of
> mine.)
I agree with your position, but I still don't understand how to consider 
transformations to generalized cases without relying on special cases.

As I understand it, you assume that it is possible to apply 
transformations at the index creation stage, but there I came across the 
selectivity overestimation problem.

I still haven't found a solution for this problem.

> While these similar RowCompareExpr transformations are at least
> somewhat important, that's not really why I bring them up now. I am
> pointing them out now because I think that it might help you to
> develop a more complete mental model of these transformations.
> Ideally, your initial approach will generalize to other situations
> later on. So it's worth considering the relationship between this
> existing RowCompareExpr transformation, and the one that you're
> working on currently. Plus other, future transformations.
I will consider my case more broadly, but for this I will need some 
research work.
> This example might also give you some appreciation of why my SAOP
> patch is confused about when we need to do normalization/safety
> checks. Some things seem necessary when generating index paths in the
> optimizer. Other things seem necessary during preprocessing, in the
> nbtree code, at the start of the index scan. Unfortunately, it's not
> obvious to me where the right place is to deal with each aspect of
> setting up multi-column SAOP index quals. My mental model is very
> incomplete.
To be honest, I think that in your examples I understand better what you 
mean by normalization to the conjunctive norm, because I only had a 
theoretical idea from the logic course.

Hence, yes, normalization/security checks - now I understand why they 
are necessary.

-- 
Regards,
Alena Rybakina
Postgres Professional

On Wed, Aug 2, 2023 at 8:58 AM Alena Rybakina <lena.ribackina@yandex.ru> wrote:
> No, I haven't thought about it yet. I studied the example and it would
> really be nice to add optimization here. I didn't notice any problems
> with its implementation. I also have an obvious example with the "or"
> operator, for example
> , select * from multi_test, where (a, b ) = ( 1, 1 ) or (a, b ) = ( 2, 1
> ) ...;
>
> Although I think such a case will be used less often.

Right. As I said, I don't particularly care about the row constructor
syntax -- it's not essential.

In my experience patches like this one that ultimately don't succeed
usually *don't* have specific problems that cannot be fixed. The real
problem tends to be ambiguity about the general high level design. So
more than anything else, ambiguity is the thing that you need to
minimize to be successful here. This is the #1 practical problem, by
far. This may be the only thing about your patch that I feel 100% sure
of.

In my experience it can actually be easier to expand the scope of a
project, and to come up with a more general solution:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inventor%27s_paradox

I'm not trying to make your work more difficult by expanding its
scope. I'm actually trying to make your work *easier* by expanding its
scope. I don't claim to know what the specific scope of your patch
should be at all. Just that it might be possible to get a much clearer
picture of what the ideal scope really is by *trying* to generalize it
further -- that understanding is what we lack right now. Even if this
exercise fails in some way, it won't really have been a failure. The
reasons why it fails will still be interesting and practically
relevant.

> It seems to me the most difficult thing is to notice problematic cases
> where the transformations are incorrect, but I think it can be implemented.

Right. To be clear, I am sure that it won't be practical to come up
with a 100% theoretically pure approach. If for no other reason than
this: normalizing to CNF in all cases will run into problems with very
complex predicates. It might even be computationally intractable
(could just be very slow). So there is a clear need to keep
theoretical purity in balance with practical considerations. There is
a need for some kind of negotiation between those two things. Probably
some set of heuristics will ultimately be required to keep costs and
benefits in balance.

> I agree with your position, but I still don't understand how to consider
> transformations to generalized cases without relying on special cases.

Me neither. I wish I could say something a bit less vague here.

I don't expect you to determine what set of heuristics will ultimately
be required to determine when and how to perform CNF conversions, in
the general case. But having at least some vague idea seems like it
might increase confidence in your design.

> As I understand it, you assume that it is possible to apply
> transformations at the index creation stage, but there I came across the
> selectivity overestimation problem.
>
> I still haven't found a solution for this problem.

Do you think that this problem is just an accidental side-effect? It
isn't necessarily the responsibility of your patch to fix such things.
If it's even possible for selectivity estimates to change, then it's
already certain that sometimes they'll be worse than before -- if only
because of chance interactions. The optimizer is often right for the
wrong reasons, and wrong for the right reasons -- we cannot really
expect any patch to completely avoid problems like that.

> To be honest, I think that in your examples I understand better what you
> mean by normalization to the conjunctive norm, because I only had a
> theoretical idea from the logic course.
>
> Hence, yes, normalization/security checks - now I understand why they
> are necessary.

As I explained to Jim, I am trying to put things in this area on a
more rigorous footing. For example, I have said that the way that the
nbtree code executes SAOP quals is equivalent to DNF. That is
basically true, but it's also my own slightly optimistic
interpretation of history and of the design. That's a good start, but
it's not enough on its own.

My interpretation might still be wrong in some subtle way, that I have
yet to discover. That's really what I'm concerned about with your
patch, too. I'm currently trying to solve a problem that I don't yet
fully understand, so for me "getting a properly working flow of
information" seems like a good practical exercise. I'm trying to
generalize the design of my own patch as far as I can, to see what
breaks, and why it breaks. My intuition is that this will help me with
my own patch by forcing me to gain a truly rigorous understanding of
the problem.

My suggestion about generalizing your approach to cover RowCompareExpr
cases is what I would do, if I were you, and this was my patch. That's
almost exactly what I'm doing with my own patch already, in fact.

--
Peter Geoghegan

On 02.08.2023 21:58, Peter Geoghegan wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 2, 2023 at 8:58 AM Alena Rybakina <lena.ribackina@yandex.ru> wrote:
>> No, I haven't thought about it yet. I studied the example and it would
>> really be nice to add optimization here. I didn't notice any problems
>> with its implementation. I also have an obvious example with the "or"
>> operator, for example
>> , select * from multi_test, where (a, b ) = ( 1, 1 ) or (a, b ) = ( 2, 1
>> ) ...;
>>
>> Although I think such a case will be used less often.
> Right. As I said, I don't particularly care about the row constructor
> syntax -- it's not essential.
>
> In my experience patches like this one that ultimately don't succeed
> usually *don't* have specific problems that cannot be fixed. The real
> problem tends to be ambiguity about the general high level design. So
> more than anything else, ambiguity is the thing that you need to
> minimize to be successful here. This is the #1 practical problem, by
> far. This may be the only thing about your patch that I feel 100% sure
> of.
>
> In my experience it can actually be easier to expand the scope of a
> project, and to come up with a more general solution:
>
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inventor%27s_paradox
>
> I'm not trying to make your work more difficult by expanding its
> scope. I'm actually trying to make your work *easier* by expanding its
> scope. I don't claim to know what the specific scope of your patch
> should be at all. Just that it might be possible to get a much clearer
> picture of what the ideal scope really is by *trying* to generalize it
> further -- that understanding is what we lack right now. Even if this
> exercise fails in some way, it won't really have been a failure. The
> reasons why it fails will still be interesting and practically
> relevant.
>
> As I explained to Jim, I am trying to put things in this area on a
> more rigorous footing. For example, I have said that the way that the
> nbtree code executes SAOP quals is equivalent to DNF. That is
> basically true, but it's also my own slightly optimistic
> interpretation of history and of the design. That's a good start, but
> it's not enough on its own.
>
> My interpretation might still be wrong in some subtle way, that I have
> yet to discover. That's really what I'm concerned about with your
> patch, too. I'm currently trying to solve a problem that I don't yet
> fully understand, so for me "getting a properly working flow of
> information" seems like a good practical exercise. I'm trying to
> generalize the design of my own patch as far as I can, to see what
> breaks, and why it breaks. My intuition is that this will help me with
> my own patch by forcing me to gain a truly rigorous understanding of
> the problem.
>
> My suggestion about generalizing your approach to cover RowCompareExpr
> cases is what I would do, if I were you, and this was my patch. That's
> almost exactly what I'm doing with my own patch already, in fact.
It's all right. I understand your position)

I also agree to try to find other optimization cases and generalize them.

I read the wiki article, and as I understand it, in such a situation we 
see a difficult problem with finding expressions that need to be 
converted into a logically correct expression and simplify execution for 
the executor. For example, this is a ROW type. It can have a simpler 
expression with AND and OR operations, besides we can exclude 
duplicates. But some of these transformations may be incorrect or they 
will have a more complex representation. We can try to find the 
problematic expressions and try to combine them into groups and finally 
find a solutions for each groups or, conversely, discover that the 
existing transformation is uncorrected. If I understand correctly, we 
should first start searching for "ROW" expressions (define a group for 
them) and think about a solution for the group.
>> It seems to me the most difficult thing is to notice problematic cases
>> where the transformations are incorrect, but I think it can be implemented.
> Right. To be clear, I am sure that it won't be practical to come up
> with a 100% theoretically pure approach. If for no other reason than
> this: normalizing to CNF in all cases will run into problems with very
> complex predicates. It might even be computationally intractable
> (could just be very slow). So there is a clear need to keep
> theoretical purity in balance with practical considerations. There is
> a need for some kind of negotiation between those two things. Probably
> some set of heuristics will ultimately be required to keep costs and
> benefits in balance.
>
> I don't expect you to determine what set of heuristics will ultimately
> be required to determine when and how to perform CNF conversions, in
> the general case. But having at least some vague idea seems like it
> might increase confidence in your design.
I agree, but I think this will be the second step after solutions are 
found.
> Do you think that this problem is just an accidental side-effect? It
> isn't necessarily the responsibility of your patch to fix such things.
> If it's even possible for selectivity estimates to change, then it's
> already certain that sometimes they'll be worse than before -- if only
> because of chance interactions. The optimizer is often right for the
> wrong reasons, and wrong for the right reasons -- we cannot really
> expect any patch to completely avoid problems like that.
To be honest, I tried to fix it many times by calling the function to 
calculate selectivity, and each time the result of the estimate did not 
change. I didn't have any problems in this part after moving the 
transformation to the parsing stage. I even tried to perform this 
transformation at the planning stage (to the preprocess_qual_conditions 
function), but I ran into the same problem there as well.

To tell the truth, I think I'm ready to investigate this problem again 
(maybe I'll be able to see it differently or really find that I missed 
something in previous times).

-- 
Regards,
Alena Rybakina
Postgres Professional

On Thu, Aug 3, 2023 at 12:47 PM Alena Rybakina <lena.ribackina@yandex.ru> wrote:
> It's all right. I understand your position)

Okay, good to know.  :-)

> I also agree to try to find other optimization cases and generalize them.

Good idea. Since the real goal is to "get a working flow of
information", the practical value of trying to get it working with
other clauses seems to be of secondary importance.

> To be honest, I tried to fix it many times by calling the function to
> calculate selectivity, and each time the result of the estimate did not
> change. I didn't have any problems in this part after moving the
> transformation to the parsing stage. I even tried to perform this
> transformation at the planning stage (to the preprocess_qual_conditions
> function), but I ran into the same problem there as well.
>
> To tell the truth, I think I'm ready to investigate this problem again
> (maybe I'll be able to see it differently or really find that I missed
> something in previous times).

The optimizer will itself do a limited form of "normalizing to CNF".
Are you familiar with extract_restriction_or_clauses(), from
orclauses.c? Comments above the function have an example of how this
can work:

 * Although a join clause must reference multiple relations overall,
 * an OR of ANDs clause might contain sub-clauses that reference just one
 * relation and can be used to build a restriction clause for that rel.
 * For example consider
 *      WHERE ((a.x = 42 AND b.y = 43) OR (a.x = 44 AND b.z = 45));
 * We can transform this into
 *      WHERE ((a.x = 42 AND b.y = 43) OR (a.x = 44 AND b.z = 45))
 *          AND (a.x = 42 OR a.x = 44)
 *          AND (b.y = 43 OR b.z = 45);
 * which allows the latter clauses to be applied during the scans of a and b,
 * perhaps as index qualifications, and in any case reducing the number of
 * rows arriving at the join.  In essence this is a partial transformation to
 * CNF (AND of ORs format).  It is not complete, however, because we do not
 * unravel the original OR --- doing so would usually bloat the qualification
 * expression to little gain.

Of course this immediately makes me wonder: shouldn't your patch be
able to perform an additional transformation here? You know, by
transforming "a.x = 42 OR a.x = 44" into "a IN (42, 44)"? Although I
haven't checked for myself, I assume that this doesn't happen right
now, since your patch currently performs all of its transformations
during parsing.

I also noticed that the same comment block goes on to say something
about "clauselist_selectivity's inability to recognize redundant
conditions". Perhaps that is relevant to the problems you were having
with selectivity estimation, back when the code was in
preprocess_qual_conditions() instead? I have no reason to believe that
there should be any redundancy left behind by your transformation, so
this is just one possibility to consider.

Separately, the commit message of commit 25a9e54d2d says something
about how the planner builds RestrictInfos, which seems
possibly-relevant. That commit enhanced extended statistics for OR
clauses, so the relevant paragraph describes a limitation of extended
statistics with OR clauses specifically. I'm just guessing, but it
still seems like it might be relevant to the problem you ran into with
selectivity estimation. Another possibility to consider.

BTW, I sometimes use RR to help improve my understanding of the planner:


https://wiki.postgresql.org/wiki/Getting_a_stack_trace_of_a_running_PostgreSQL_backend_on_Linux/BSD#Recording_Postgres_using_rr_Record_and_Replay_Framework

The planner has particularly complicated control flow, which has
unique challenges -- just knowing where to begin can be difficult
(unlike most other areas). I find that setting watchpoints to see when
and where the planner modifies state using RR is far more useful than
it would be with regular GDB. Once I record a query, I find that I can
"map out" what happens in the planner relatively easily.

--
Peter Geoghegan

On Sat, Aug 5, 2023 at 7:01 PM Peter Geoghegan <pg@bowt.ie> wrote:
> Of course this immediately makes me wonder: shouldn't your patch be
> able to perform an additional transformation here? You know, by
> transforming "a.x = 42 OR a.x = 44" into "a IN (42, 44)"? Although I
> haven't checked for myself, I assume that this doesn't happen right
> now, since your patch currently performs all of its transformations
> during parsing.

Many interesting cases won't get SAOP transformation from the patch,
simply because of the or_transform_limit GUC's default of 500. I don't
think that that design makes too much sense. It made more sense back
when the focus was on expression evaluation overhead. But that's only
one of the benefits that we now expect from the patch, right? So it
seems like something that should be revisited soon.

I'm not suggesting that there is no need for some kind of limit. But
it seems like a set of heuristics might be a better approach. Although
I would like to get a better sense of the costs of the transformation
to be able to say too much more.

--
Peter Geoghegan

Hi! Thank you for your research, I'm sure it will help me to fix the 
problem of calculating selectivity faster)
I'm sorry I didn't answer right away, to be honest, I had a full diary 
of urgent matters at work. For this reason, I didn't have enough time to 
work on this patch properly.

> The optimizer will itself do a limited form of "normalizing to CNF".
> Are you familiar with extract_restriction_or_clauses(), from
> orclauses.c? Comments above the function have an example of how this
> can work:
>
>   * Although a join clause must reference multiple relations overall,
>   * an OR of ANDs clause might contain sub-clauses that reference just one
>   * relation and can be used to build a restriction clause for that rel.
>   * For example consider
>   *      WHERE ((a.x = 42 AND b.y = 43) OR (a.x = 44 AND b.z = 45));
>   * We can transform this into
>   *      WHERE ((a.x = 42 AND b.y = 43) OR (a.x = 44 AND b.z = 45))
>   *          AND (a.x = 42 OR a.x = 44)
>   *          AND (b.y = 43 OR b.z = 45);
>   * which allows the latter clauses to be applied during the scans of a and b,
>   * perhaps as index qualifications, and in any case reducing the number of
>   * rows arriving at the join.  In essence this is a partial transformation to
>   * CNF (AND of ORs format).  It is not complete, however, because we do not
>   * unravel the original OR --- doing so would usually bloat the qualification
>   * expression to little gain.
This is an interesting feature. I didn't notice this function before, I 
studied many times consider_new_or_cause, which were called there. As 
far as I know, there is a selectivity calculation going on there, but as 
far as I remember, I called it earlier after my conversion, and 
unfortunately it didn't solve my problem with calculating selectivity. 
I'll reconsider it again, maybe I can find something I missed.
> Of course this immediately makes me wonder: shouldn't your patch be
> able to perform an additional transformation here? You know, by
> transforming "a.x = 42 OR a.x = 44" into "a IN (42, 44)"? Although I
> haven't checked for myself, I assume that this doesn't happen right
> now, since your patch currently performs all of its transformations
> during parsing.
>
> I also noticed that the same comment block goes on to say something
> about "clauselist_selectivity's inability to recognize redundant
> conditions". Perhaps that is relevant to the problems you were having
> with selectivity estimation, back when the code was in
> preprocess_qual_conditions() instead? I have no reason to believe that
> there should be any redundancy left behind by your transformation, so
> this is just one possibility to consider.
> Separately, the commit message of commit 25a9e54d2d says something
> about how the planner builds RestrictInfos, which seems
> possibly-relevant. That commit enhanced extended statistics for OR
> clauses, so the relevant paragraph describes a limitation of extended
> statistics with OR clauses specifically. I'm just guessing, but it
> still seems like it might be relevant to the problem you ran into with
> selectivity estimation. Another possibility to consider.

I understood what is said about AND clauses in this comment. It seems to 
me that AND clauses saved like (BoolExpr *) expr->args->(RestrictInfo *) 
clauseA->(RestrictInfo *)clauseB lists and OR clauses saved like 
(BoolExpr *) expr -> orclause->(RestrictInfo *)clause A->(RestrictInfo 
*)clause B.

As I understand it, selectivity is calculated for each expression. But 
I'll exploring it deeper, because I think this place may contain the 
answer to the question, what's wrong with selectivity calculation in my 
patch.

> BTW, I sometimes use RR to help improve my understanding of the planner:
>
>
https://wiki.postgresql.org/wiki/Getting_a_stack_trace_of_a_running_PostgreSQL_backend_on_Linux/BSD#Recording_Postgres_using_rr_Record_and_Replay_Framework
> The planner has particularly complicated control flow, which has
> unique challenges -- just knowing where to begin can be difficult
> (unlike most other areas). I find that setting watchpoints to see when
> and where the planner modifies state using RR is far more useful than
> it would be with regular GDB. Once I record a query, I find that I can
> "map out" what happens in the planner relatively easily.
Thank you for sharing this source! I didn't know about this before, and 
it will definitely make my life easier to understand the optimizer.

I understand what you mean, and I researched the optimizer in a similar 
way through gdb and looked at the comments and code in postgresql. This 
is a complicated way and I didn't always understand correctly what this 
variable was doing in this place, and this created some difficulties for me.

So, thank you for the link!

> Many interesting cases won't get SAOP transformation from the patch,
> simply because of the or_transform_limit GUC's default of 500. I don't
> think that that design makes too much sense. It made more sense back
> when the focus was on expression evaluation overhead. But that's only
> one of the benefits that we now expect from the patch, right? So it
> seems like something that should be revisited soon.
>
> I'm not suggesting that there is no need for some kind of limit. But
> it seems like a set of heuristics might be a better approach. Although
> I would like to get a better sense of the costs of the transformation
> to be able to say too much more.

Yes, this may be revised in the future after some transformations. 
Initially, I was solving the problem described here [0]. So, after 
testing [1], I come to the conclusion that 500 is the ideal value for 
or_transform_limit.

[0] 
https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/919bfbcb-f812-758d-d687-71f89f0d9a68%40postgrespro.ru

[1] 
https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/6b97b517-f36a-f0c6-3b3a-0cf8cfba220c%40yandex.ru

-- 
Regards,
Alena Rybakina
Postgres Professional

The optimizer will itself do a limited form of "normalizing to CNF".
Are you familiar with extract_restriction_or_clauses(), from
orclauses.c? Comments above the function have an example of how this
can work:

  * Although a join clause must reference multiple relations overall,
  * an OR of ANDs clause might contain sub-clauses that reference just one
  * relation and can be used to build a restriction clause for that rel.
  * For example consider
  *      WHERE ((a.x = 42 AND b.y = 43) OR (a.x = 44 AND b.z = 45));
  * We can transform this into
  *      WHERE ((a.x = 42 AND b.y = 43) OR (a.x = 44 AND b.z = 45))
  *          AND (a.x = 42 OR a.x = 44)
  *          AND (b.y = 43 OR b.z = 45);
  * which allows the latter clauses to be applied during the scans of a and b,
  * perhaps as index qualifications, and in any case reducing the number of
  * rows arriving at the join.  In essence this is a partial transformation to
  * CNF (AND of ORs format).  It is not complete, however, because we do not
  * unravel the original OR --- doing so would usually bloat the qualification
  * expression to little gain.

This is an interesting feature. I didn't notice this function before, I studied many times consider_new_or_cause, which were called there. As far as I know, there is a selectivity calculation going on there, but as far as I remember, I called it earlier after my conversion, and unfortunately it didn't solve my problem with calculating selectivity. I'll reconsider it again, maybe I can find something I missed.

Of course this immediately makes me wonder: shouldn't your patch be
able to perform an additional transformation here? You know, by
transforming "a.x = 42 OR a.x = 44" into "a IN (42, 44)"? Although I
haven't checked for myself, I assume that this doesn't happen right
now, since your patch currently performs all of its transformations
during parsing.

I also noticed that the same comment block goes on to say something
about "clauselist_selectivity's inability to recognize redundant
conditions". Perhaps that is relevant to the problems you were having
with selectivity estimation, back when the code was in
preprocess_qual_conditions() instead? I have no reason to believe that
there should be any redundancy left behind by your transformation, so
this is just one possibility to consider.
Separately, the commit message of commit 25a9e54d2d says something
about how the planner builds RestrictInfos, which seems
possibly-relevant. That commit enhanced extended statistics for OR
clauses, so the relevant paragraph describes a limitation of extended
statistics with OR clauses specifically. I'm just guessing, but it
still seems like it might be relevant to the problem you ran into with
selectivity estimation. Another possibility to consider.

I understood what is said about AND clauses in this comment. It seems to me that AND clauses saved like (BoolExpr *) expr->args->(RestrictInfo *) clauseA->(RestrictInfo *)clauseB lists and OR clauses saved like (BoolExpr *) expr -> orclause->(RestrictInfo *)clause A->(RestrictInfo *)clause B.

As I understand it, selectivity is calculated for each expression. But I'll exploring it deeper, because I think this place may contain the answer to the question, what's wrong with selectivity calculation in my patch.

I could move transformation in there (extract_restriction_or_clauses) and didn't have any problem with selectivity calculation, besides it also works on the redundant or duplicates stage. So, it looks like:

CREATE TABLE tenk1 (unique1 int, unique2 int, ten int, hundred int); insert into tenk1 SELECT x,x,x,x FROM generate_series(1,50000) as x; CREATE INDEX a_idx1 ON tenk1(unique1); CREATE INDEX a_idx2 ON tenk1(unique2); CREATE INDEX a_hundred ON tenk1(hundred);

explain analyze select * from tenk1 a join tenk1 b on ((a.unique2 = 3 or a.unique2 = 7));

PLAN ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Nested Loop (cost=0.29..2033.62 rows=100000 width=32) (actual time=0.090..60.258 rows=100000 loops=1) -> Seq Scan on tenk1 b (cost=0.00..771.00 rows=50000 width=16) (actual time=0.016..9.747 rows=50000 loops=1) -> Materialize (cost=0.29..12.62 rows=2 width=16) (actual time=0.000..0.000 rows=2 loops=50000) -> Index Scan using a_idx2 on tenk1 a (cost=0.29..12.62 rows=2 width=16) (actual time=0.063..0.068 rows=2 loops=1) Index Cond: (unique2 = ANY (ARRAY[3, 7])) Planning Time: 8.257 ms Execution Time: 64.453 ms (7 rows)

Overall, this was due to incorrectly defined types of elements in the array, and if we had applied the transformation with the definition of the tup operator, we could have avoided such problems (I used make_scalar_array_op and have not yet found an alternative to this).

When I moved the transformation on the index creation stage, it couldn't work properly and as a result I faced the same problem of selectivity calculation. I supposed that the selectivity values are also used there, and not recalculated all over again. perhaps we can solve this by forcibly recalculating the selectivity values, but I foresee other problems there.

explain analyze select * from tenk1 a join tenk1 b on ((a.unique2 = 3 or a.unique2 = 7));

QUERY PLAN ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Nested Loop (cost=12.58..312942.91 rows=24950000 width=32) (actual time=0.040..47.582 rows=100000 loops=1) -> Seq Scan on tenk1 b (cost=0.00..771.00 rows=50000 width=16) (actual time=0.009..7.039 rows=50000 loops=1) -> Materialize (cost=12.58..298.16 rows=499 width=16) (actual time=0.000..0.000 rows=2 loops=50000) -> Bitmap Heap Scan on tenk1 a (cost=12.58..295.66 rows=499 width=16) (actual time=0.025..0.028 rows=2 loops=1) Recheck Cond: ((unique2 = 3) OR (unique2 = 7)) Heap Blocks: exact=1 -> BitmapOr (cost=12.58..12.58 rows=500 width=0) (actual time=0.023..0.024 rows=0 loops=1) -> Bitmap Index Scan on a_idx2 (cost=0.00..6.17 rows=250 width=0) (actual time=0.019..0.019 rows=1 loops=1) Index Cond: (unique2 = 3) -> Bitmap Index Scan on a_idx2 (cost=0.00..6.17 rows=250 width=0) (actual time=0.003..0.003 rows=1 loops=1) Index Cond: (unique2 = 7) Planning Time: 0.401 ms Execution Time: 51.350 ms (13 rows)

I have attached a diff file so far, but it is very raw and did not pass all regression tests (I attached regression.diff) and even had bad conversion cases (some of the cases did not work at all, in other cases there were no non-converted nodes). But now I see an interesting transformation, which was the most interesting for me.

EXPLAIN (COSTS OFF) SELECT * FROM tenk1 WHERE thousand = 42 AND (tenthous = 1 OR tenthous = 3 OR tenthous = 42); - QUERY PLAN ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ - Bitmap Heap Scan on tenk1 - Recheck Cond: (((thousand = 42) AND (tenthous = 1)) OR ((thousand = 42) AND (tenthous = 3)) OR ((thousand = 42) AND (tenthous = 42))) - -> BitmapOr - -> Bitmap Index Scan on tenk1_thous_tenthous - Index Cond: ((thousand = 42) AND (tenthous = 1)) - -> Bitmap Index Scan on tenk1_thous_tenthous - Index Cond: ((thousand = 42) AND (tenthous = 3)) - -> Bitmap Index Scan on tenk1_thous_tenthous - Index Cond: ((thousand = 42) AND (tenthous = 42)) -(9 rows) + QUERY PLAN +------------------------------------------------------------------------ + Index Scan using tenk1_thous_tenthous on tenk1 + Index Cond: ((thousand = 42) AND (tenthous = ANY (ARRAY[1, 3, 42]))) +(2 rows)

Sorry, I didn't write correctly enough, about the second second place in the code where the conversion works well enough is the removal of duplicate OR expressions.

I attached patch to learn it in more detail.

Hi, all!

The optimizer will itself do a limited form of "normalizing to CNF".
Are you familiar with extract_restriction_or_clauses(), from
orclauses.c? Comments above the function have an example of how this
can work:

  * Although a join clause must reference multiple relations overall,
  * an OR of ANDs clause might contain sub-clauses that reference just one
  * relation and can be used to build a restriction clause for that rel.
  * For example consider
  *      WHERE ((a.x = 42 AND b.y = 43) OR (a.x = 44 AND b.z = 45));
  * We can transform this into
  *      WHERE ((a.x = 42 AND b.y = 43) OR (a.x = 44 AND b.z = 45))
  *          AND (a.x = 42 OR a.x = 44)
  *          AND (b.y = 43 OR b.z = 45);
  * which allows the latter clauses to be applied during the scans of a and b,
  * perhaps as index qualifications, and in any case reducing the number of
  * rows arriving at the join.  In essence this is a partial transformation to
  * CNF (AND of ORs format).  It is not complete, however, because we do not
  * unravel the original OR --- doing so would usually bloat the qualification
  * expression to little gain.

This is an interesting feature. I didn't notice this function before, I studied many times consider_new_or_cause, which were called there. As far as I know, there is a selectivity calculation going on there, but as far as I remember, I called it earlier after my conversion, and unfortunately it didn't solve my problem with calculating selectivity. I'll reconsider it again, maybe I can find something I missed.

Of course this immediately makes me wonder: shouldn't your patch be
able to perform an additional transformation here? You know, by
transforming "a.x = 42 OR a.x = 44" into "a IN (42, 44)"? Although I
haven't checked for myself, I assume that this doesn't happen right
now, since your patch currently performs all of its transformations
during parsing.

I also noticed that the same comment block goes on to say something
about "clauselist_selectivity's inability to recognize redundant
conditions". Perhaps that is relevant to the problems you were having
with selectivity estimation, back when the code was in
preprocess_qual_conditions() instead? I have no reason to believe that
there should be any redundancy left behind by your transformation, so
this is just one possibility to consider.
Separately, the commit message of commit 25a9e54d2d says something
about how the planner builds RestrictInfos, which seems
possibly-relevant. That commit enhanced extended statistics for OR
clauses, so the relevant paragraph describes a limitation of extended
statistics with OR clauses specifically. I'm just guessing, but it
still seems like it might be relevant to the problem you ran into with
selectivity estimation. Another possibility to consider.

I understood what is said about AND clauses in this comment. It seems to me that AND clauses saved like (BoolExpr *) expr->args->(RestrictInfo *) clauseA->(RestrictInfo *)clauseB lists and OR clauses saved like (BoolExpr *) expr -> orclause->(RestrictInfo *)clause A->(RestrictInfo *)clause B.

As I understand it, selectivity is calculated for each expression. But I'll exploring it deeper, because I think this place may contain the answer to the question, what's wrong with selectivity calculation in my patch.

I could move transformation in there (extract_restriction_or_clauses) and didn't have any problem with selectivity calculation, besides it also works on the redundant or duplicates stage. So, it looks like:

CREATE TABLE tenk1 (unique1 int, unique2 int, ten int, hundred int); insert into tenk1 SELECT x,x,x,x FROM generate_series(1,50000) as x; CREATE INDEX a_idx1 ON tenk1(unique1); CREATE INDEX a_idx2 ON tenk1(unique2); CREATE INDEX a_hundred ON tenk1(hundred);

explain analyze select * from tenk1 a join tenk1 b on ((a.unique2 = 3 or a.unique2 = 7));

PLAN ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Nested Loop (cost=0.29..2033.62 rows=100000 width=32) (actual time=0.090..60.258 rows=100000 loops=1) -> Seq Scan on tenk1 b (cost=0.00..771.00 rows=50000 width=16) (actual time=0.016..9.747 rows=50000 loops=1) -> Materialize (cost=0.29..12.62 rows=2 width=16) (actual time=0.000..0.000 rows=2 loops=50000) -> Index Scan using a_idx2 on tenk1 a (cost=0.29..12.62 rows=2 width=16) (actual time=0.063..0.068 rows=2 loops=1) Index Cond: (unique2 = ANY (ARRAY[3, 7])) Planning Time: 8.257 ms Execution Time: 64.453 ms (7 rows)

Overall, this was due to incorrectly defined types of elements in the array, and if we had applied the transformation with the definition of the tup operator, we could have avoided such problems (I used make_scalar_array_op and have not yet found an alternative to this).

When I moved the transformation on the index creation stage, it couldn't work properly and as a result I faced the same problem of selectivity calculation. I supposed that the selectivity values are also used there, and not recalculated all over again. perhaps we can solve this by forcibly recalculating the selectivity values, but I foresee other problems there.

explain analyze select * from tenk1 a join tenk1 b on ((a.unique2 = 3 or a.unique2 = 7));

QUERY PLAN ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Nested Loop (cost=12.58..312942.91 rows=24950000 width=32) (actual time=0.040..47.582 rows=100000 loops=1) -> Seq Scan on tenk1 b (cost=0.00..771.00 rows=50000 width=16) (actual time=0.009..7.039 rows=50000 loops=1) -> Materialize (cost=12.58..298.16 rows=499 width=16) (actual time=0.000..0.000 rows=2 loops=50000) -> Bitmap Heap Scan on tenk1 a (cost=12.58..295.66 rows=499 width=16) (actual time=0.025..0.028 rows=2 loops=1) Recheck Cond: ((unique2 = 3) OR (unique2 = 7)) Heap Blocks: exact=1 -> BitmapOr (cost=12.58..12.58 rows=500 width=0) (actual time=0.023..0.024 rows=0 loops=1) -> Bitmap Index Scan on a_idx2 (cost=0.00..6.17 rows=250 width=0) (actual time=0.019..0.019 rows=1 loops=1) Index Cond: (unique2 = 3) -> Bitmap Index Scan on a_idx2 (cost=0.00..6.17 rows=250 width=0) (actual time=0.003..0.003 rows=1 loops=1) Index Cond: (unique2 = 7) Planning Time: 0.401 ms Execution Time: 51.350 ms (13 rows)

I have attached a diff file so far, but it is very raw and did not pass all regression tests (I attached regression.diff) and even had bad conversion cases (some of the cases did not work at all, in other cases there were no non-converted nodes). But now I see an interesting transformation, which was the most interesting for me.

EXPLAIN (COSTS OFF) SELECT * FROM tenk1 WHERE thousand = 42 AND (tenthous = 1 OR tenthous = 3 OR tenthous = 42); - QUERY PLAN ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ - Bitmap Heap Scan on tenk1 - Recheck Cond: (((thousand = 42) AND (tenthous = 1)) OR ((thousand = 42) AND (tenthous = 3)) OR ((thousand = 42) AND (tenthous = 42))) - -> BitmapOr - -> Bitmap Index Scan on tenk1_thous_tenthous - Index Cond: ((thousand = 42) AND (tenthous = 1)) - -> Bitmap Index Scan on tenk1_thous_tenthous - Index Cond: ((thousand = 42) AND (tenthous = 3)) - -> Bitmap Index Scan on tenk1_thous_tenthous - Index Cond: ((thousand = 42) AND (tenthous = 42)) -(9 rows) + QUERY PLAN +------------------------------------------------------------------------ + Index Scan using tenk1_thous_tenthous on tenk1 + Index Cond: ((thousand = 42) AND (tenthous = ANY (ARRAY[1, 3, 42]))) +(2 rows)

On Thu, Aug 17, 2023 at 3:08 AM a.rybakina <a.rybakina@postgrespro.ru> wrote:
> This is an interesting feature. I didn't notice this function before, I studied many times consider_new_or_cause,
whichwere called there. As far as I know, there is a selectivity calculation going on there, but as far as I remember,
Icalled it earlier after my conversion, and unfortunately it didn't solve my problem with calculating selectivity. I'll
reconsiderit again, maybe I can find something I missed. 

Back in 2003, commit 9888192f removed (or at least simplified) what
were then called "CNF/DNF CONVERSION ROUTINES". Prior to that point
the optimizer README had something about leaving clause lists
un-normalized leading to selectivity estimation problems. Bear in mind
that this is a couple of years before ScalarArrayOpExpr was first
invented. Apparently even back then "The OR-of-ANDs format is useful
for indexscan implementation". It's possible that that old work will
offer some hints on what to do now.

In a way it's not surprising that work in this area would have some
impact on selectivies. The surprising part is the extent of the
problem, I suppose.

I see that a lot of the things in this area are just used by BitmapOr
clauses, such as build_paths_for_OR() -- but you're not necessarily
able to use any of that stuff. Also, choose_bitmap_and() has some
stuff about how it compensates to avoid "too-small selectivity that
makes a redundant AND step look like it reduces the total cost". It
also mentions some problems with match_join_clauses_to_index() +
extract_restriction_or_clauses(). Again, this might be a good place to
look for more clues.

--
Peter Geoghegan

On Sun, Aug 20, 2023 at 3:11 PM Peter Geoghegan <pg@bowt.ie> wrote:
> Back in 2003, commit 9888192f removed (or at least simplified) what
> were then called "CNF/DNF CONVERSION ROUTINES". Prior to that point
> the optimizer README had something about leaving clause lists
> un-normalized leading to selectivity estimation problems. Bear in mind
> that this is a couple of years before ScalarArrayOpExpr was first
> invented. Apparently even back then "The OR-of-ANDs format is useful
> for indexscan implementation". It's possible that that old work will
> offer some hints on what to do now.

There was actually support for OR lists in index AMs prior to
ScalarArrayOpExpr. Even though ScalarArrayOpExpr don't really seem all
that related to bitmap scans these days (since at least nbtree knows
how to execute them "natively"), that wasn't always the case.
ScalarArrayOpExpr were invented the same year that bitmap index scans
were first added (2005), and seem more or less related to that work.
See commits bc843d39, 5b051852, 1e9a6ba5, and 290166f9 (all from
2005). Particularly the last one, which has a commit message that
heavily suggests that my interpretation is correct.

I think that we currently over-rely on BitmapOr for OR clauses. It's
useful that they're so general, of course, but ISTM that we shouldn't
even try to use a BitmapOr in simple cases. Things like the "WHERE
thousand = 42 AND (tenthous = 1 OR tenthous = 3 OR tenthous = 42)"
tenk1 query that you brought up probably shouldn't even have a
BitmapOr path (which I guess they don't with you patch). Note that I
recently discussed the same query at length with Tomas Vondra on the
ongoing thread for his index filter patch (you probably knew that
already).

--
Peter Geoghegan

On Thu, Aug 17, 2023 at 3:08 AM a.rybakina <a.rybakina@postgrespro.ru> wrote:
> But now I see an interesting transformation, which was the most interesting for me.
>
> EXPLAIN (COSTS OFF) SELECT * FROM tenk1 WHERE thousand = 42 AND (tenthous = 1 OR tenthous = 3 OR tenthous = 42);

It would be even more interesting if it could be an index-only scan as
a result of the transformation. For example, we could use an
index-only scan with this query (once your patch was in place):

"SELECT thousand, tenthous FROM tenk1 WHERE thousand = 42 AND
(tenthous = 1 OR tenthous = 3 OR tenthous = 42)"

Index-only scans were the original motivation for adding native
ScalarArrayExprOp support to nbtree (in 2011 commit 9e8da0f7), in
fact.

As I suggested earlier, I suspect that there is too much planner logic
that targets BitmapOrs specifically -- maybe even selectivity
estimation/restrictinfo stuff.

PS I wonder if the correctness issues that you saw could be related to
eval_const_expressions(), since "the planner assumes that this
[eval_const_expressions] will always flatten nested AND and OR clauses
into N-argument form". See its subroutines simplify_or_arguments() and
simplify_and_arguments().

--
Peter Geoghegan

Thank you for your interest in this problem and help, and I'm sorry that I didn't respond to this email for a long time. To be honest, I wanted to investigate the problems in more detail and already answer more clearly, but unfortunately I have not found anything more significant yet.

There was actually support for OR lists in index AMs prior to
ScalarArrayOpExpr. Even though ScalarArrayOpExpr don't really seem all
that related to bitmap scans these days (since at least nbtree knows
how to execute them "natively"), that wasn't always the case.
ScalarArrayOpExpr were invented the same year that bitmap index scans
were first added (2005), and seem more or less related to that work.
See commits bc843d39, 5b051852, 1e9a6ba5, and 290166f9 (all from
2005). Particularly the last one, which has a commit message that
heavily suggests that my interpretation is correct.

Back in 2003, commit 9888192f removed (or at least simplified) what
were then called "CNF/DNF CONVERSION ROUTINES". Prior to that point
the optimizer README had something about leaving clause lists
un-normalized leading to selectivity estimation problems. Bear in mind
that this is a couple of years before ScalarArrayOpExpr was first
invented. Apparently even back then "The OR-of-ANDs format is useful
for indexscan implementation". It's possible that that old work will
offer some hints on what to do now.
In a way it's not surprising that work in this area would have some
impact on selectivies. The surprising part is the extent of the
problem, I suppose.

I see that a lot of the things in this area are just used by BitmapOr
clauses, such as build_paths_for_OR() -- but you're not necessarily
able to use any of that stuff. Also, choose_bitmap_and() has some
stuff about how it compensates to avoid "too-small selectivity that
makes a redundant AND step look like it reduces the total cost". It
also mentions some problems with match_join_clauses_to_index() +
extract_restriction_or_clauses(). Again, this might be a good place to
look for more clues.

 EXPLAIN (COSTS OFF) SELECT * FROM tenk1   WHERE thousand = 42 AND (tenthous = 1 OR tenthous = 3 OR tenthous = 42);
-                                                               QUERY PLAN                                                                
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
- Bitmap Heap Scan on tenk1
-   Recheck Cond: (((thousand = 42) AND (tenthous = 1)) OR ((thousand = 42) AND (tenthous = 3)) OR ((thousand = 42) AND (tenthous = 42)))
-   ->  BitmapOr
-         ->  Bitmap Index Scan on tenk1_thous_tenthous
-               Index Cond: ((thousand = 42) AND (tenthous = 1))
-         ->  Bitmap Index Scan on tenk1_thous_tenthous
-               Index Cond: ((thousand = 42) AND (tenthous = 3))
-         ->  Bitmap Index Scan on tenk1_thous_tenthous
-               Index Cond: ((thousand = 42) AND (tenthous = 42))
-(9 rows)
+                               QUERY PLAN                               
+------------------------------------------------------------------------
+ Index Scan using tenk1_thous_tenthous on tenk1
+   Index Cond: ((thousand = 42) AND (tenthous = ANY (ARRAY[1, 3, 42])))
+(2 rows)

I think that we currently over-rely on BitmapOr for OR clauses. It's
useful that they're so general, of course, but ISTM that we shouldn't
even try to use a BitmapOr in simple cases. Things like the "WHERE
thousand = 42 AND (tenthous = 1 OR tenthous = 3 OR tenthous = 42)"
tenk1 query that you brought up probably shouldn't even have a
BitmapOr path (which I guess they don't with you patch). Note that I
recently discussed the same query at length with Tomas Vondra on the
ongoing thread for his index filter patch (you probably knew that
already).

On 29.08.23 05:37, a.rybakina wrote:
> Thank you for your interest in this problem and help, and I'm sorry that 
> I didn't respond to this email for a long time. To be honest, I wanted 
> to investigate the problems in more detail and already answer more 
> clearly, but unfortunately I have not found anything more significant yet.

What is the status of this patch?  It is registered in the commitfest. 
It looks like a stalled research project?  The last posted patch doesn't 
contain any description or tests, so it doesn't look very ready.

Hi!

When I sent the patch version to commitfest, I thought that the work on 
this topic was completed. Patch version and test results in [0].

But in the process of discussing this patch, we found out that there is 
another place where you can make a transformation, specifically, during 
the calculation of selectivity. I implemented the raw version [1], but 
unfortunately it didn't work in regression tests.

I'm sorry that I didn't write about the status earlier, I was very 
overwhelmed with tasks at work due to releases and preparations for the 
conference. I returned to the work of this patch, today or tomorrow I'll 
drop the version.


[0]

https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/4bac271d-1700-db24-74ac-8414f2baf9fd%40postgrespro.ru

https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/11403645-b342-c400-859e-47d0f41ec22a%40postgrespro.ru

[1] 
https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/b301dce1-09fd-72b1-834a-527ca428db5e%40yandex.ru

On 20.09.2023 12:37, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
> On 29.08.23 05:37, a.rybakina wrote:
>> Thank you for your interest in this problem and help, and I'm sorry 
>> that I didn't respond to this email for a long time. To be honest, I 
>> wanted to investigate the problems in more detail and already answer 
>> more clearly, but unfortunately I have not found anything more 
>> significant yet.
>
> What is the status of this patch?  It is registered in the commitfest. 
> It looks like a stalled research project?  The last posted patch 
> doesn't contain any description or tests, so it doesn't look very ready.
>

I'm sorry I didn't write for a long time, but I really had a very difficult month, now I'm fully back to work.I was able to implement the patches to the end and moved the transformation of "OR" expressions to ANY. I haven't seen a big difference between them yet, one has a conversion before calculating selectivity (v7-v1-Replace-OR-clause-to-ANY.patch), the other after (v7-v2-Replace-OR-clause-to-ANY.patch). Regression tests are passing, I don't see any problems with selectivity, nothing has fallen into the coredump, but I found some incorrect transformations. What is the reason for these inaccuracies, I have not found, but, to be honest, they look unusual). Gave the error below.
In the patch, I don't like that I had to drag three libraries from parsing until I found a way around it.The advantage of this approach compared to the other (v7-v0-Replace-OR-clause-to-ANY.patch) is that at this stage all possible or transformations are performed, compared to the patch, where the transformation was done at the parsing stage. That is, here, for example, there are such optimizations in the transformation:

I took the common element out of the bracket and the rest is converted to ANY, while, as noted by Peter Geoghegan, we did not have several bitmapscans, but only one scan through the array.

postgres=# explain analyze SELECT p1.oid, p1.proname
FROM pg_proc as p1
WHERE prolang = 13 AND prolang=1 OR prolang = 13 AND prolang = 2 OR prolang = 13 AND prolang = 3;
                                              QUERY PLAN                                               
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 Seq Scan on pg_proc p1  (cost=0.00..151.66 rows=1 width=68) (actual time=1.167..1.168 rows=0 loops=1)
   Filter: ((prolang = '13'::oid) AND (prolang = ANY (ARRAY['1'::oid, '2'::oid, '3'::oid])))
   Rows Removed by Filter: 3302
 Planning Time: 0.146 ms
 Execution Time: 1.191 ms
(5 rows)

While I was testing, I found some transformations that don't work, although in my opinion, they should:

1. First case:
explain analyze SELECT p1.oid, p1.proname
FROM pg_proc as p1
WHERE prolang = 13 AND prolang=1 OR prolang = 2 AND prolang = 2 OR prolang = 13 AND prolang = 13;
                                                                              QUERY PLAN                                                                              
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 Seq Scan on pg_proc p1  (cost=0.00..180.55 rows=2 width=68) (actual time=2.959..3.335 rows=89 loops=1)
   Filter: (((prolang = '13'::oid) AND (prolang = '1'::oid)) OR ((prolang = '2'::oid) AND (prolang = '2'::oid)) OR ((prolang = '13'::oid) AND (prolang = '13'::oid)))
   Rows Removed by Filter: 3213
 Planning Time: 1.278 ms
 Execution Time: 3.486 ms
(5 rows)

Should have left only prolang = '13'::oid:

                                              QUERY PLAN                                               
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 Seq Scan on pg_proc p1  (cost=0.00..139.28 rows=1 width=68) (actual time=2.034..2.034 rows=0 loops=1)
   Filter: ((prolang = '13'::oid ))
   Rows Removed by Filter: 3302
 Planning Time: 0.181 ms
 Execution Time: 2.079 ms
(5 rows)

2. Also does not work:
postgres=# explain analyze SELECT p1.oid, p1.proname
FROM pg_proc as p1
WHERE prolang = 13 OR prolang = 2 AND prolang = 2 OR prolang = 13;
                                                  QUERY PLAN                                                   
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 Seq Scan on pg_proc p1  (cost=0.00..164.04 rows=176 width=68) (actual time=2.422..2.686 rows=89 loops=1)
   Filter: ((prolang = '13'::oid) OR ((prolang = '2'::oid) AND (prolang = '2'::oid)) OR (prolang = '13'::oid))
   Rows Removed by Filter: 3213
 Planning Time: 1.370 ms
 Execution Time: 2.799 ms
(5 rows)

Should have left:
Filter: ((prolang = '13'::oid) OR (prolang = '2'::oid))

3. Or another:

explain analyze SELECT p1.oid, p1.proname
FROM pg_proc as p1
WHERE prolang = 13 OR prolang=13 OR prolang = 2 AND prolang = 2;
                                                  QUERY PLAN                                                   
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 Seq Scan on pg_proc p1  (cost=0.00..164.04 rows=176 width=68) (actual time=2.350..2.566 rows=89 loops=1)
   Filter: ((prolang = '13'::oid) OR (prolang = '13'::oid) OR ((prolang = '2'::oid) AND (prolang = '2'::oid)))
   Rows Removed by Filter: 3213
 Planning Time: 0.215 ms
 Execution Time: 2.624 ms
(5 rows)

Should have left:
Filter: ((prolang = '13'::oid) OR (prolang = '2'::oid))

Falls into coredump at me:
explain analyze SELECT p1.oid, p1.proname
FROM pg_proc as p1
WHERE prolang = 13 OR prolang = 2 AND prolang = 2 OR prolang = 13;

explain analyze SELECT p1.oid, p1.proname
FROM pg_proc as p1
WHERE prolang = 13 OR prolang=13 OR prolang = 2 AND prolang = 2;
                                                  QUERY PLAN                                                   
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 Seq Scan on pg_proc p1  (cost=0.00..164.04 rows=176 width=68) (actual time=2.350..2.566 rows=89 loops=1)
   Filter: ((prolang = '13'::oid) OR (prolang = '13'::oid) OR ((prolang = '2'::oid) AND (prolang = '2'::oid)))
   Rows Removed by Filter: 3213
 Planning Time: 0.215 ms
 Execution Time: 2.624 ms

(5 rows)

I remind that initially the task was to find an opportunity to optimize the case of processing a large number of "or" expressions to optimize memory consumption. The FlameGraph for executing 50,000 "or" expressionshas grown 1.4Gb and remains in this state until exiting the psql session (flamegraph1.png) and it sagged a lot in execution time. If this case is converted to ANY, the query is executed much faster and memory is optimized (flamegraph2.png). It may be necessary to use this approach if there is no support for the framework to process ANY, IN expressions.

Peter Geoghegan also noticed some development of this patch in terms of preparing some transformations to optimize the query at the stage of its execution [0].

[0] https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/CAH2-Wz%3D9N_4%2BEyhtyFqYQRx4OgVbP%2B1aoYU2JQPVogCir61ZEQ%40mail.gmail.com

I'm sorry I didn't write for a long time, but I really had a very difficult month, now I'm fully back to work.I was able to implement the patches to the end and moved the transformation of "OR" expressions to ANY. I haven't seen a big difference between them yet, one has a transformation before calculating selectivity (v7.1-Replace-OR-clause-to-ANY.patch), the other after (v7.2-Replace-OR-clause-to-ANY.patch). Regression tests are passing, I don't see any problems with selectivity, nothing has fallen into the coredump, but I found some incorrect transformations. What is the reason for these inaccuracies, I have not found, but, to be honest, they look unusual). Gave the error below.

In the patch, I don't like that I had to drag three libraries from parsing until I found a way around it.The advantage of this approach compared to the other (v7.0-Replace-OR-clause-to-ANY.patch) is that at this stage all possible or transformations are performed, compared to the patch, where the transformation was done at the parsing stage. That is, here, for example, there are such optimizations in the transformation:
I took the common element out of the bracket and the rest is converted to ANY, while, as noted by Peter Geoghegan, we did not have several bitmapscans, but only one scan through the array.

postgres=# explain analyze SELECT p1.oid, p1.proname
FROM pg_proc as p1
WHERE prolang = 13 AND prolang=1 OR prolang = 13 AND prolang = 2 OR prolang = 13 AND prolang = 3;
                                              QUERY PLAN                                               
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 Seq Scan on pg_proc p1  (cost=0.00..151.66 rows=1 width=68) (actual time=1.167..1.168 rows=0 loops=1)
   Filter: ((prolang = '13'::oid) AND (prolang = ANY (ARRAY['1'::oid, '2'::oid, '3'::oid])))
   Rows Removed by Filter: 3302
 Planning Time: 0.146 ms
 Execution Time: 1.191 ms
(5 rows)

While I was testing, I found some transformations that don't work, although in my opinion, they should:

1. First case:
explain analyze SELECT p1.oid, p1.proname
FROM pg_proc as p1
WHERE prolang = 13 AND prolang=1 OR prolang = 2 AND prolang = 2 OR prolang = 13 AND prolang = 13;
                                                                              QUERY PLAN                                                                              
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 Seq Scan on pg_proc p1  (cost=0.00..180.55 rows=2 width=68) (actual time=2.959..3.335 rows=89 loops=1)
   Filter: (((prolang = '13'::oid) AND (prolang = '1'::oid)) OR ((prolang = '2'::oid) AND (prolang = '2'::oid)) OR ((prolang = '13'::oid) AND (prolang = '13'::oid)))
   Rows Removed by Filter: 3213
 Planning Time: 1.278 ms
 Execution Time: 3.486 ms
(5 rows)

Should have left only prolang = '13'::oid:

                                              QUERY PLAN                                               
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 Seq Scan on pg_proc p1  (cost=0.00..139.28 rows=1 width=68) (actual time=2.034..2.034 rows=0 loops=1)
   Filter: ((prolang = '13'::oid ))
   Rows Removed by Filter: 3302
 Planning Time: 0.181 ms
 Execution Time: 2.079 ms
(5 rows)

2. Also does not work:
postgres=# explain analyze SELECT p1.oid, p1.proname
FROM pg_proc as p1
WHERE prolang = 13 OR prolang = 2 AND prolang = 2 OR prolang = 13;
                                                  QUERY PLAN                                                   
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 Seq Scan on pg_proc p1  (cost=0.00..164.04 rows=176 width=68) (actual time=2.422..2.686 rows=89 loops=1)
   Filter: ((prolang = '13'::oid) OR ((prolang = '2'::oid) AND (prolang = '2'::oid)) OR (prolang = '13'::oid))
   Rows Removed by Filter: 3213
 Planning Time: 1.370 ms
 Execution Time: 2.799 ms
(5 rows)

Should have left:
Filter: ((prolang = '13'::oid) OR (prolang = '2'::oid))

3. Or another:

explain analyze SELECT p1.oid, p1.proname
FROM pg_proc as p1
WHERE prolang = 13 OR prolang=13 OR prolang = 2 AND prolang = 2;
                                                  QUERY PLAN                                                   
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 Seq Scan on pg_proc p1  (cost=0.00..164.04 rows=176 width=68) (actual time=2.350..2.566 rows=89 loops=1)
   Filter: ((prolang = '13'::oid) OR (prolang = '13'::oid) OR ((prolang = '2'::oid) AND (prolang = '2'::oid)))
   Rows Removed by Filter: 3213
 Planning Time: 0.215 ms
 Execution Time: 2.624 ms
(5 rows)

Should have left:
Filter: ((prolang = '13'::oid) OR (prolang = '2'::oid))

Falls into coredump at me:
explain analyze SELECT p1.oid, p1.proname
FROM pg_proc as p1
WHERE prolang = 13 OR prolang = 2 AND prolang = 2 OR prolang = 13;

explain analyze SELECT p1.oid, p1.proname
FROM pg_proc as p1
WHERE prolang = 13 OR prolang=13 OR prolang = 2 AND prolang = 2;
                                                  QUERY PLAN                                                   
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 Seq Scan on pg_proc p1  (cost=0.00..164.04 rows=176 width=68) (actual time=2.350..2.566 rows=89 loops=1)
   Filter: ((prolang = '13'::oid) OR (prolang = '13'::oid) OR ((prolang = '2'::oid) AND (prolang = '2'::oid)))
   Rows Removed by Filter: 3213
 Planning Time: 0.215 ms
 Execution Time: 2.624 ms

(5 rows)

I remind that initially the task was to find an opportunity to optimize the case of processing a large number of "or" expressions to optimize memory consumption. The FlameGraph for executing 50,000 "or" expressionshas grown 1.4Gb and remains in this state until exiting the psql session (flamegraph1.png) and it sagged a lot in execution time. If this case is converted to ANY, the query is executed much faster and memory is optimized (flamegraph2.png). It may be necessary to use this approach if there is no support for the framework to process ANY, IN expressions.

Peter Geoghegan also noticed some development of this patch in terms of preparing some transformations to optimize the query at the stage of its execution [0].

[0] https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/CAH2-Wz%3D9N_4%2BEyhtyFqYQRx4OgVbP%2B1aoYU2JQPVogCir61ZEQ%40mail.gmail.com

I'm sorry I didn't write for a long time, but I really had a very difficult month, now I'm fully back to work.I was able to implement the patches to the end and moved the transformation of "OR" expressions to ANY. I haven't seen a big difference between them yet, one has a transformation before calculating selectivity (v7.1-Replace-OR-clause-to-ANY.patch), the other after (v7.2-Replace-OR-clause-to-ANY.patch). Regression tests are passing, I don't see any problems with selectivity, nothing has fallen into the coredump, but I found some incorrect transformations. What is the reason for these inaccuracies, I have not found, but, to be honest, they look unusual). Gave the error below.

In the patch, I don't like that I had to drag three libraries from parsing until I found a way around it.The advantage of this approach compared to the other ([1]) is that at this stage all possible or transformations are performed, compared to the patch, where the transformation was done at the parsing stage. That is, here, for example, there are such optimizations in the transformation:
I took the common element out of the bracket and the rest is converted to ANY, while, as noted by Peter Geoghegan, we did not have several bitmapscans, but only one scan through the array.

postgres=# explain analyze SELECT p1.oid, p1.proname
FROM pg_proc as p1
WHERE prolang = 13 AND prolang=1 OR prolang = 13 AND prolang = 2 OR prolang = 13 AND prolang = 3;
                                              QUERY PLAN                                               
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 Seq Scan on pg_proc p1  (cost=0.00..151.66 rows=1 width=68) (actual time=1.167..1.168 rows=0 loops=1)
   Filter: ((prolang = '13'::oid) AND (prolang = ANY (ARRAY['1'::oid, '2'::oid, '3'::oid])))
   Rows Removed by Filter: 3302
 Planning Time: 0.146 ms
 Execution Time: 1.191 ms
(5 rows)

While I was testing, I found some transformations that don't work, although in my opinion, they should:

1. First case:
explain analyze SELECT p1.oid, p1.proname
FROM pg_proc as p1
WHERE prolang = 13 AND prolang=1 OR prolang = 2 AND prolang = 2 OR prolang = 13 AND prolang = 13;
                                                                              QUERY PLAN                                                                              
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 Seq Scan on pg_proc p1  (cost=0.00..180.55 rows=2 width=68) (actual time=2.959..3.335 rows=89 loops=1)
   Filter: (((prolang = '13'::oid) AND (prolang = '1'::oid)) OR ((prolang = '2'::oid) AND (prolang = '2'::oid)) OR ((prolang = '13'::oid) AND (prolang = '13'::oid)))
   Rows Removed by Filter: 3213
 Planning Time: 1.278 ms
 Execution Time: 3.486 ms
(5 rows)

Should have left only prolang = '13'::oid:

                                              QUERY PLAN                                               
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 Seq Scan on pg_proc p1  (cost=0.00..139.28 rows=1 width=68) (actual time=2.034..2.034 rows=0 loops=1)
   Filter: ((prolang = '13'::oid ))
   Rows Removed by Filter: 3302
 Planning Time: 0.181 ms
 Execution Time: 2.079 ms
(5 rows)

2. Also does not work:
postgres=# explain analyze SELECT p1.oid, p1.proname
FROM pg_proc as p1
WHERE prolang = 13 OR prolang = 2 AND prolang = 2 OR prolang = 13;
                                                  QUERY PLAN                                                   
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 Seq Scan on pg_proc p1  (cost=0.00..164.04 rows=176 width=68) (actual time=2.422..2.686 rows=89 loops=1)
   Filter: ((prolang = '13'::oid) OR ((prolang = '2'::oid) AND (prolang = '2'::oid)) OR (prolang = '13'::oid))
   Rows Removed by Filter: 3213
 Planning Time: 1.370 ms
 Execution Time: 2.799 ms
(5 rows)

Should have left:
Filter: ((prolang = '13'::oid) OR (prolang = '2'::oid))

3. Or another:

explain analyze SELECT p1.oid, p1.proname
FROM pg_proc as p1
WHERE prolang = 13 OR prolang=13 OR prolang = 2 AND prolang = 2;
                                                  QUERY PLAN                                                   
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 Seq Scan on pg_proc p1  (cost=0.00..164.04 rows=176 width=68) (actual time=2.350..2.566 rows=89 loops=1)
   Filter: ((prolang = '13'::oid) OR (prolang = '13'::oid) OR ((prolang = '2'::oid) AND (prolang = '2'::oid)))
   Rows Removed by Filter: 3213
 Planning Time: 0.215 ms
 Execution Time: 2.624 ms
(5 rows)

Should have left:
Filter: ((prolang = '13'::oid) OR (prolang = '2'::oid))

Falls into coredump at me:
explain analyze SELECT p1.oid, p1.proname
FROM pg_proc as p1
WHERE prolang = 13 OR prolang = 2 AND prolang = 2 OR prolang = 13;

explain analyze SELECT p1.oid, p1.proname
FROM pg_proc as p1
WHERE prolang = 13 OR prolang=13 OR prolang = 2 AND prolang = 2;
                                                  QUERY PLAN                                                   
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 Seq Scan on pg_proc p1  (cost=0.00..164.04 rows=176 width=68) (actual time=2.350..2.566 rows=89 loops=1)
   Filter: ((prolang = '13'::oid) OR (prolang = '13'::oid) OR ((prolang = '2'::oid) AND (prolang = '2'::oid)))
   Rows Removed by Filter: 3213
 Planning Time: 0.215 ms
 Execution Time: 2.624 ms

(5 rows)

I remind that initially the task was to find an opportunity to optimize the case of processing a large number of "or" expressions to optimize memory consumption. The FlameGraph for executing 50,000 "or" expressionshas grown 1.4Gb and remains in this state until exiting the psql session (flamegraph1.png) and it sagged a lot in execution time. If this case is converted to ANY, the query is executed much faster and memory is optimized (flamegraph2.png). It may be necessary to use this approach if there is no support for the framework to process ANY, IN expressions.

Peter Geoghegan also noticed some development of this patch in terms of preparing some transformations to optimize the query at the stage of its execution [0].

[0] https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/CAH2-Wz%3D9N_4%2BEyhtyFqYQRx4OgVbP%2B1aoYU2JQPVogCir61ZEQ%40mail.gmail.com

[1] https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/attachment/149105/v7-Replace-OR-clause-to-ANY-expressions.patch

Sorry for the duplicates, I received a letter that my letter did not reach the addressee, I thought the design was incorrect.

I'm sorry I didn't write for a long time, but I really had a very difficult month, now I'm fully back to work.I was able to implement the patches to the end and moved the transformation of "OR" expressions to ANY. I haven't seen a big difference between them yet, one has a transformation before calculating selectivity (v7.1-Replace-OR-clause-to-ANY.patch), the other after (v7.2-Replace-OR-clause-to-ANY.patch). Regression tests are passing, I don't see any problems with selectivity, nothing has fallen into the coredump, but I found some incorrect transformations. What is the reason for these inaccuracies, I have not found, but, to be honest, they look unusual). Gave the error below.

In the patch, I don't like that I had to drag three libraries from parsing until I found a way around it.The advantage of this approach compared to the other ([1]) is that at this stage all possible or transformations are performed, compared to the patch, where the transformation was done at the parsing stage. That is, here, for example, there are such optimizations in the transformation:
I took the common element out of the bracket and the rest is converted to ANY, while, as noted by Peter Geoghegan, we did not have several bitmapscans, but only one scan through the array.

postgres=# explain analyze SELECT p1.oid, p1.proname
FROM pg_proc as p1
WHERE prolang = 13 AND prolang=1 OR prolang = 13 AND prolang = 2 OR prolang = 13 AND prolang = 3;
                                              QUERY PLAN                                               
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 Seq Scan on pg_proc p1  (cost=0.00..151.66 rows=1 width=68) (actual time=1.167..1.168 rows=0 loops=1)
   Filter: ((prolang = '13'::oid) AND (prolang = ANY (ARRAY['1'::oid, '2'::oid, '3'::oid])))
   Rows Removed by Filter: 3302
 Planning Time: 0.146 ms
 Execution Time: 1.191 ms
(5 rows)

While I was testing, I found some transformations that don't work, although in my opinion, they should:

1. First case:
explain analyze SELECT p1.oid, p1.proname
FROM pg_proc as p1
WHERE prolang = 13 AND prolang=1 OR prolang = 2 AND prolang = 2 OR prolang = 13 AND prolang = 13;
                                                                              QUERY PLAN                                                                              
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 Seq Scan on pg_proc p1  (cost=0.00..180.55 rows=2 width=68) (actual time=2.959..3.335 rows=89 loops=1)
   Filter: (((prolang = '13'::oid) AND (prolang = '1'::oid)) OR ((prolang = '2'::oid) AND (prolang = '2'::oid)) OR ((prolang = '13'::oid) AND (prolang = '13'::oid)))
   Rows Removed by Filter: 3213
 Planning Time: 1.278 ms
 Execution Time: 3.486 ms
(5 rows)

Should have left only prolang = '13'::oid:

                                              QUERY PLAN                                               
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 Seq Scan on pg_proc p1  (cost=0.00..139.28 rows=1 width=68) (actual time=2.034..2.034 rows=0 loops=1)
   Filter: ((prolang = '13'::oid ))
   Rows Removed by Filter: 3302
 Planning Time: 0.181 ms
 Execution Time: 2.079 ms
(5 rows)

2. Also does not work:
postgres=# explain analyze SELECT p1.oid, p1.proname
FROM pg_proc as p1
WHERE prolang = 13 OR prolang = 2 AND prolang = 2 OR prolang = 13;
                                                  QUERY PLAN                                                   
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 Seq Scan on pg_proc p1  (cost=0.00..164.04 rows=176 width=68) (actual time=2.422..2.686 rows=89 loops=1)
   Filter: ((prolang = '13'::oid) OR ((prolang = '2'::oid) AND (prolang = '2'::oid)) OR (prolang = '13'::oid))
   Rows Removed by Filter: 3213
 Planning Time: 1.370 ms
 Execution Time: 2.799 ms
(5 rows)

Should have left:
Filter: ((prolang = '13'::oid) OR (prolang = '2'::oid))

3. Or another:

explain analyze SELECT p1.oid, p1.proname
FROM pg_proc as p1
WHERE prolang = 13 OR prolang=13 OR prolang = 2 AND prolang = 2;
                                                  QUERY PLAN                                                   
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 Seq Scan on pg_proc p1  (cost=0.00..164.04 rows=176 width=68) (actual time=2.350..2.566 rows=89 loops=1)
   Filter: ((prolang = '13'::oid) OR (prolang = '13'::oid) OR ((prolang = '2'::oid) AND (prolang = '2'::oid)))
   Rows Removed by Filter: 3213
 Planning Time: 0.215 ms
 Execution Time: 2.624 ms
(5 rows)

Should have left:
Filter: ((prolang = '13'::oid) OR (prolang = '2'::oid))

Falls into coredump at me:
explain analyze SELECT p1.oid, p1.proname
FROM pg_proc as p1
WHERE prolang = 13 OR prolang = 2 AND prolang = 2 OR prolang = 13;

explain analyze SELECT p1.oid, p1.proname
FROM pg_proc as p1
WHERE prolang = 13 OR prolang=13 OR prolang = 2 AND prolang = 2;
                                                  QUERY PLAN                                                   
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 Seq Scan on pg_proc p1  (cost=0.00..164.04 rows=176 width=68) (actual time=2.350..2.566 rows=89 loops=1)
   Filter: ((prolang = '13'::oid) OR (prolang = '13'::oid) OR ((prolang = '2'::oid) AND (prolang = '2'::oid)))
   Rows Removed by Filter: 3213
 Planning Time: 0.215 ms
 Execution Time: 2.624 ms

(5 rows)

I remind that initially the task was to find an opportunity to optimize the case of processing a large number of "or" expressions to optimize memory consumption. The FlameGraph for executing 50,000 "or" expressionshas grown 1.4Gb and remains in this state until exiting the psql session (flamegraph1.png) and it sagged a lot in execution time. If this case is converted to ANY, the query is executed much faster and memory is optimized (flamegraph2.png). It may be necessary to use this approach if there is no support for the framework to process ANY, IN expressions.

Peter Geoghegan also noticed some development of this patch in terms of preparing some transformations to optimize the query at the stage of its execution [0].

[0] https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/CAH2-Wz%3D9N_4%2BEyhtyFqYQRx4OgVbP%2B1aoYU2JQPVogCir61ZEQ%40mail.gmail.com

[1] https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/attachment/149105/v7-Replace-OR-clause-to-ANY-expressions.patch

I'm sorry I didn't write for a long time, but I really had a very difficult month, now I'm fully back to work.I was able to implement the patches to the end and moved the transformation of "OR" expressions to ANY. I haven't seen a big difference between them yet, one has a transformation before calculating selectivity (v7.1-Replace-OR-clause-to-ANY.patch), the other after (v7.2-Replace-OR-clause-to-ANY.patch). Regression tests are passing, I don't see any problems with selectivity, nothing has fallen into the coredump, but I found some incorrect transformations. What is the reason for these inaccuracies, I have not found, but, to be honest, they look unusual). Gave the error below.

In the patch, I don't like that I had to drag three libraries from parsing until I found a way around it.The advantage of this approach compared to the other ([1]) is that at this stage all possible or transformations are performed, compared to the patch, where the transformation was done at the parsing stage. That is, here, for example, there are such optimizations in the transformation:
I took the common element out of the bracket and the rest is converted to ANY, while, as noted by Peter Geoghegan, we did not have several bitmapscans, but only one scan through the array.

postgres=# explain analyze SELECT p1.oid, p1.proname
FROM pg_proc as p1
WHERE prolang = 13 AND prolang=1 OR prolang = 13 AND prolang = 2 OR prolang = 13 AND prolang = 3;
                                              QUERY PLAN                                               
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 Seq Scan on pg_proc p1  (cost=0.00..151.66 rows=1 width=68) (actual time=1.167..1.168 rows=0 loops=1)
   Filter: ((prolang = '13'::oid) AND (prolang = ANY (ARRAY['1'::oid, '2'::oid, '3'::oid])))
   Rows Removed by Filter: 3302
 Planning Time: 0.146 ms
 Execution Time: 1.191 ms
(5 rows)

Falls into coredump at me:
explain analyze SELECT p1.oid, p1.proname
FROM pg_proc as p1
WHERE prolang = 13 OR prolang = 2 AND prolang = 2 OR prolang = 13;

I continue to try to move transformations of "OR" expressions at the optimization stage, unfortunately I have not been able to figure out coredump yet, but I saw an important thing that it is already necessary to process RestrictInfo expressions here. I corrected it.

To be honest, despite some significant advantages in the fact that we are already processing pre-converted "or" expressions (logical transformations have been performed and duplicates have been removed), I have big doubts about this approach. We already have quite a lot of objects at this stage that can refer to the RestrictInfo variable in ReplOptInfo, and updating these links can be costly for us. By the way, right now I suspect that the current coredump appeared precisely because there is a link somewhere that refers to an un-updated RestrictInfo, but so far I can't find this place. coredump occurs at the request execution stage, looks like this:Core was generated by `postgres: alena regression [local] SELECT                                     '.
--Type <RET> for more, q to quit, c to continue without paging--
Program terminated with signal SIGSEGV, Segmentation fault.
#0  0x00005565f3ec4947 in ExecInitExprRec (node=0x5565f530b290, state=0x5565f53383d8, resv=0x5565f53383e0, resnull=0x5565f53383dd) at execExpr.c:1331
1331                                            Expr       *arg = (Expr *) lfirst(lc);
(gdb) bt
#0  0x00005565f3ec4947 in ExecInitExprRec (node=0x5565f530b290, state=0x5565f53383d8, resv=0x5565f53383e0, resnull=0x5565f53383dd) at execExpr.c:1331
#1  0x00005565f3ec2708 in ExecInitQual (qual=0x5565f531d950, parent=0x5565f5337948) at execExpr.c:258
#2  0x00005565f3f2f080 in ExecInitSeqScan (node=0x5565f5309700, estate=0x5565f5337700, eflags=32) at nodeSeqscan.c:172
#3  0x00005565f3ee70c9 in ExecInitNode (node=0x5565f5309700, estate=0x5565f5337700, eflags=32) at execProcnode.c:210
#4  0x00005565f3edbe3a in InitPlan (queryDesc=0x5565f53372f0, eflags=32) at execMain.c:968
#5  0x00005565f3edabe3 in standard_ExecutorStart (queryDesc=0x5565f53372f0, eflags=32) at execMain.c:266
#6  0x00005565f3eda927 in ExecutorStart (queryDesc=0x5565f53372f0, eflags=0) at execMain.c:145
#7  0x00005565f419921e in PortalStart (portal=0x5565f52ace90, params=0x0, eflags=0, snapshot=0x0) at pquery.c:517
#8  0x00005565f4192635 in exec_simple_query (
    query_string=0x5565f5233af0 "SELECT p1.oid, p1.proname\nFROM pg_proc as p1\nWHERE prolang = 13 AND (probin IS NULL OR probin = '' OR probin = '-');") at postgres.c:1233
#9  0x00005565f41976ef in PostgresMain (dbname=0x5565f526ad10 "regression", username=0x5565f526acf8 "alena") at postgres.c:4652
#10 0x00005565f40b8417 in BackendRun (port=0x5565f525f830) at postmaster.c:4439
#11 0x00005565f40b7ca3 in BackendStartup (port=0x5565f525f830) at postmaster.c:4167
#12 0x00005565f40b40f1 in ServerLoop () at postmaster.c:1781
#13 0x00005565f40b399b in PostmasterMain (argc=8, argv=0x5565f522c110) at postmaster.c:1465
#14 0x00005565f3f6560e in main (argc=8, argv=0x5565f522c110) at main.c:198

I have saved my experimental version of the "or" transfer in the diff file, I am attaching the main patch in the ".patch" format so that the tests are checked against this version. Let me remind you that the main patch contains the code for converting "OR" expressions to "ANY" at the parsing stage.

I'm sorry I didn't write for a long time, but I really had a very difficult month, now I'm fully back to work.I was able to implement the patches to the end and moved the transformation of "OR" expressions to ANY. I haven't seen a big difference between them yet, one has a transformation before calculating selectivity (v7.1-Replace-OR-clause-to-ANY.patch), the other after (v7.2-Replace-OR-clause-to-ANY.patch). Regression tests are passing, I don't see any problems with selectivity, nothing has fallen into the coredump, but I found some incorrect transformations. What is the reason for these inaccuracies, I have not found, but, to be honest, they look unusual). Gave the error below.

In the patch, I don't like that I had to drag three libraries from parsing until I found a way around it.The advantage of this approach compared to the other ([1]) is that at this stage all possible or transformations are performed, compared to the patch, where the transformation was done at the parsing stage. That is, here, for example, there are such optimizations in the transformation:
I took the common element out of the bracket and the rest is converted to ANY, while, as noted by Peter Geoghegan, we did not have several bitmapscans, but only one scan through the array.

postgres=# explain analyze SELECT p1.oid, p1.proname
FROM pg_proc as p1
WHERE prolang = 13 AND prolang=1 OR prolang = 13 AND prolang = 2 OR prolang = 13 AND prolang = 3;
                                              QUERY PLAN                                               
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 Seq Scan on pg_proc p1  (cost=0.00..151.66 rows=1 width=68) (actual time=1.167..1.168 rows=0 loops=1)
   Filter: ((prolang = '13'::oid) AND (prolang = ANY (ARRAY['1'::oid, '2'::oid, '3'::oid])))
   Rows Removed by Filter: 3302
 Planning Time: 0.146 ms
 Execution Time: 1.191 ms
(5 rows)

Falls into coredump at me:
explain analyze SELECT p1.oid, p1.proname
FROM pg_proc as p1
WHERE prolang = 13 OR prolang = 2 AND prolang = 2 OR prolang = 13;

Hi, all!

I fixed the kernel dump issue and all the regression tests were successful, but I discovered another problem when I added my own regression tests.
Some queries that contain "or" expressions do not convert to "ANY". I have described this in more detail using diff as expected and real results:diff -U3 /home/alena/postgrespro__copy6/src/test/regress/expected/create_index.out /home/alena/postgrespro__copy6/src/test/regress/results/create_index.out
--- /home/alena/postgrespro__copy6/src/test/regress/expected/create_index.out 2023-10-04 21:54:12.496282667 +0300
+++ /home/alena/postgrespro__copy6/src/test/regress/results/create_index.out  2023-10-04 21:55:41.665422459 +0300
@@ -1925,17 +1925,20 @@
 EXPLAIN (COSTS OFF)
 SELECT count(*) FROM tenk1
   WHERE thousand = 42 AND (tenthous = 1 OR tenthous = 3) OR thousand = 41;
-                                               QUERY PLAN                                               
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
+                                                        QUERY PLAN                                                         
+---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
  Aggregate
    ->  Bitmap Heap Scan on tenk1
-         Recheck Cond: (((thousand = 42) AND (tenthous = ANY ('{1,3}'::integer[]))) OR (thousand = 41))
+         Recheck Cond: ((((thousand = 42) AND (tenthous = 1)) OR ((thousand = 42) AND (tenthous = 3))) OR (thousand = 41))
          ->  BitmapOr
-               ->  Bitmap Index Scan on tenk1_thous_tenthous
-                     Index Cond: ((thousand = 42) AND (tenthous = ANY ('{1,3}'::integer[])))
+               ->  BitmapOr
+                     ->  Bitmap Index Scan on tenk1_thous_tenthous
+                           Index Cond: ((thousand = 42) AND (tenthous = 1))
+                     ->  Bitmap Index Scan on tenk1_thous_tenthous
+                           Index Cond: ((thousand = 42) AND (tenthous = 3))
                ->  Bitmap Index Scan on tenk1_thous_tenthous
                      Index Cond: (thousand = 41)
-(8 rows)
+(11 rows)
@@ -1946,24 +1949,50 @@
 EXPLAIN (COSTS OFF)
 SELECT count(*) FROM tenk1
+  WHERE thousand = 42 OR tenthous = 1 AND thousand = 42 OR tenthous = 1;
+                                            QUERY PLAN                                             
+---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
+ Aggregate
+   ->  Bitmap Heap Scan on tenk1
+         Recheck Cond: ((thousand = 42) OR ((thousand = 42) AND (tenthous = 1)) OR (tenthous = 1))
+         ->  BitmapOr
+               ->  Bitmap Index Scan on tenk1_thous_tenthous
+                     Index Cond: (thousand = 42)
+               ->  Bitmap Index Scan on tenk1_thous_tenthous
+                     Index Cond: ((thousand = 42) AND (tenthous = 1))
+               ->  Bitmap Index Scan on tenk1_thous_tenthous
+                     Index Cond: (tenthous = 1)
+(10 rows)
+
+SELECT count(*) FROM tenk1
+  WHERE thousand = 42 OR tenthous = 1 AND thousand = 42 OR tenthous = 1;
+ count
+-------
+    11
+(1 row)
+
+EXPLAIN (COSTS OFF)
+SELECT count(*) FROM tenk1
   WHERE hundred = 42 AND (thousand = 42 OR thousand = 99 OR tenthous < 2) OR thousand = 41;
-                                                         QUERY PLAN                                                          
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
+                                                       QUERY PLAN                                                       
+------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
  Aggregate
    ->  Bitmap Heap Scan on tenk1
-         Recheck Cond: (((hundred = 42) AND ((tenthous < 2) OR (thousand = ANY ('{42,99}'::integer[])))) OR (thousand = 41))
+         Recheck Cond: (((hundred = 42) AND ((thousand = 42) OR (thousand = 99) OR (tenthous < 2))) OR (thousand = 41))
          ->  BitmapOr
                ->  BitmapAnd
                      ->  Bitmap Index Scan on tenk1_hundred
                            Index Cond: (hundred = 42)
                      ->  BitmapOr
                            ->  Bitmap Index Scan on tenk1_thous_tenthous
-                                 Index Cond: (tenthous < 2)
+                                 Index Cond: (thousand = 42)
                            ->  Bitmap Index Scan on tenk1_thous_tenthous
-                                 Index Cond: (thousand = ANY ('{42,99}'::integer[]))
+                                 Index Cond: (thousand = 99)
+                           ->  Bitmap Index Scan on tenk1_thous_tenthous
+                                 Index Cond: (tenthous < 2)
                ->  Bitmap Index Scan on tenk1_thous_tenthous
                      Index Cond: (thousand = 41)
-(14 rows)
+(16 rows)

diff -U3 /home/alena/postgrespro__copy6/src/test/regress/expected/join.out /home/alena/postgrespro__copy6/src/test/regress/results/join.out
--- /home/alena/postgrespro__copy6/src/test/regress/expected/join.out 2023-10-04 21:53:55.632069079 +0300
+++ /home/alena/postgrespro__copy6/src/test/regress/results/join.out  2023-10-04 21:55:46.597485979 +0300
 explain (costs off)
 select * from tenk1 a join tenk1 b on
   (a.unique1 < 20 or a.unique1 = 3 or a.unique1 = 1 and b.unique1 = 2) or
   ((a.unique2 = 3 or a.unique2 = 7) and b.hundred = 4);
-                                                                          QUERY PLAN                                                                           
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
+                                                                         QUERY PLAN                                                                          
+-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
  Nested Loop
-   Join Filter: ((a.unique1 < 20) OR ((a.unique1 = 1) AND (b.unique1 = 2)) OR ((a.unique2 = ANY ('{3,7}'::integer[])) AND (b.hundred = 4)) OR (a.unique1 = 3))
+   Join Filter: ((a.unique1 < 20) OR (a.unique1 = 3) OR ((a.unique1 = 1) AND (b.unique1 = 2)) OR (((a.unique2 = 3) OR (a.unique2 = 7)) AND (b.hundred = 4)))
    ->  Seq Scan on tenk1 b
    ->  Materialize
          ->  Bitmap Heap Scan on tenk1 a
-               Recheck Cond: ((unique1 < 20) OR (unique1 = 1) OR (unique2 = ANY ('{3,7}'::integer[])) OR (unique1 = 3))
+               Recheck Cond: ((unique1 < 20) OR (unique1 = 3) OR (unique1 = 1) OR (unique2 = 3) OR (unique2 = 7))
                ->  BitmapOr
                      ->  Bitmap Index Scan on tenk1_unique1
                            Index Cond: (unique1 < 20)
                      ->  Bitmap Index Scan on tenk1_unique1
+                           Index Cond: (unique1 = 3)
+                     ->  Bitmap Index Scan on tenk1_unique1
                            Index Cond: (unique1 = 1)
                      ->  Bitmap Index Scan on tenk1_unique2
-                           Index Cond: (unique2 = ANY ('{3,7}'::integer[]))
-                     ->  Bitmap Index Scan on tenk1_unique1
-                           Index Cond: (unique1 = 3)
-(15 rows)
+                           Index Cond: (unique2 = 3)
+                     ->  Bitmap Index Scan on tenk1_unique2
+                           Index Cond: (unique2 = 7)
+(17 rows)

 explain (costs off)
 select * from tenk1 a join tenk1 b on
   (a.unique1 < 20 or a.unique1 = 3 or a.unique1 = 1 and b.unique1 = 2) or
   ((a.unique2 = 3 or a.unique2 = 7) and b.hundred = 4);
-                                                                          QUERY PLAN                                                                           
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
+                                                                         QUERY PLAN                                                                          
+-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
  Nested Loop
-   Join Filter: ((a.unique1 < 20) OR ((a.unique1 = 1) AND (b.unique1 = 2)) OR ((a.unique2 = ANY ('{3,7}'::integer[])) AND (b.hundred = 4)) OR (a.unique1 = 3))
+   Join Filter: ((a.unique1 < 20) OR (a.unique1 = 3) OR ((a.unique1 = 1) AND (b.unique1 = 2)) OR (((a.unique2 = 3) OR (a.unique2 = 7)) AND (b.hundred = 4)))
    ->  Seq Scan on tenk1 b
    ->  Materialize
          ->  Bitmap Heap Scan on tenk1 a
-               Recheck Cond: ((unique1 < 20) OR (unique1 = 1) OR (unique2 = ANY ('{3,7}'::integer[])) OR (unique1 = 3))
+               Recheck Cond: ((unique1 < 20) OR (unique1 = 3) OR (unique1 = 1) OR (unique2 = 3) OR (unique2 = 7))
                ->  BitmapOr
                      ->  Bitmap Index Scan on tenk1_unique1
                            Index Cond: (unique1 < 20)
                      ->  Bitmap Index Scan on tenk1_unique1
+                           Index Cond: (unique1 = 3)
+                     ->  Bitmap Index Scan on tenk1_unique1
                            Index Cond: (unique1 = 1)
                      ->  Bitmap Index Scan on tenk1_unique2
-                           Index Cond: (unique2 = ANY ('{3,7}'::integer[]))
-                     ->  Bitmap Index Scan on tenk1_unique1
-                           Index Cond: (unique1 = 3)
-(15 rows)
+                           Index Cond: (unique2 = 3)
+                     ->  Bitmap Index Scan on tenk1_unique2
+                           Index Cond: (unique2 = 7)
+(17 rows)

I haven't been able to fully deal with this problem yet

I have attached my experimental patch with the code.

Hi, Alena!

Thank you for your work on the subject.

On Wed, Oct 4, 2023 at 10:21 PM a.rybakina <a.rybakina@postgrespro.ru> wrote:
> I fixed the kernel dump issue and all the regression tests were successful, but I discovered another problem when I
addedmy own regression tests. 
> Some queries that contain "or" expressions do not convert to "ANY". I have described this in more detail using diff
asexpected and real results: 
>
> diff -U3 /home/alena/postgrespro__copy6/src/test/regress/expected/create_index.out
/home/alena/postgrespro__copy6/src/test/regress/results/create_index.out
> --- /home/alena/postgrespro__copy6/src/test/regress/expected/create_index.out 2023-10-04 21:54:12.496282667 +0300
> +++ /home/alena/postgrespro__copy6/src/test/regress/results/create_index.out  2023-10-04 21:55:41.665422459 +0300
> @@ -1925,17 +1925,20 @@
>  EXPLAIN (COSTS OFF)
>  SELECT count(*) FROM tenk1
>    WHERE thousand = 42 AND (tenthous = 1 OR tenthous = 3) OR thousand = 41;
> -                                               QUERY PLAN
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> +                                                        QUERY PLAN
>
+---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>   Aggregate
>     ->  Bitmap Heap Scan on tenk1
> -         Recheck Cond: (((thousand = 42) AND (tenthous = ANY ('{1,3}'::integer[]))) OR (thousand = 41))
> +         Recheck Cond: ((((thousand = 42) AND (tenthous = 1)) OR ((thousand = 42) AND (tenthous = 3))) OR (thousand
=41)) 
>           ->  BitmapOr
> -               ->  Bitmap Index Scan on tenk1_thous_tenthous
> -                     Index Cond: ((thousand = 42) AND (tenthous = ANY ('{1,3}'::integer[])))
> +               ->  BitmapOr
> +                     ->  Bitmap Index Scan on tenk1_thous_tenthous
> +                           Index Cond: ((thousand = 42) AND (tenthous = 1))
> +                     ->  Bitmap Index Scan on tenk1_thous_tenthous
> +                           Index Cond: ((thousand = 42) AND (tenthous = 3))
>                 ->  Bitmap Index Scan on tenk1_thous_tenthous
>                       Index Cond: (thousand = 41)
> -(8 rows)
> +(11 rows)

I think this query is not converted, because you only convert
top-level ORs in the transform_ors() function.  But in the example
given, the target OR lays under AND, which in turn lays under another
OR.  I think you need to make transform_ors() recursive to handle
cases like this.

I wonder about the default value of the parameter or_transform_limit
of 500. In [1] and [2] you show the execution time degradation from 0
to ~500 OR clauses.  I made a simple SQL script with the query "SELECT
* FROM pgbench_accounts a WHERE  aid = 1 OR aid = 2 OR ... OR aid =
100;". The pgbench results for a single connection in prepared mode
are the following.
master: 936 tps
patched (or_transform_limit == 0) :1414 tps
So, transformation to ANY obviously accelerates the execution.

I think it's important to identify the cases where this patch causes
the degradation.  Generally, I don't see why ANY could be executed
slower than the equivalent OR clause.  So, the possible degradation
cases are slower plan generation and worse plans.  I managed to find
both.

As you stated before, currently the OR transformation has a quadratic
complexity depending on the number of or-clause-groups.  I made a
simple test to evaluate this. containing 10000 or-clause-groups.
SELECT * FROM pgbench_accounts a WHERE aid + 1 * bid = 1 OR aid + 2 *
bid = 1 OR ... OR aid + 10000 * bid = 1;
master: 316ms
patched: 7142ms
Note, that the current or_transform_limit GUC parameter is not capable
of cutting such cases, because it cuts cases lower than the limit not
higher than the limit.  In the comment, you mention that we could
invent something like hash to handle this.  Hash should be nice, but
the problem is that we currently don't have a generic facility to hash
nodes (or even order them).  It would be nice to add this facility,
that would be quite a piece of work.  I would propose to limit this
patch for now to handle just a single Var node as a non-const side of
the clause and implement a simple hash for Vars.

Another problem is the possible generation of worse plans.  I made an
example table with two partial indexes.
create table test as (select (random()*10)::int x, (random()*1000) y
from generate_series(1,1000000) i);
create index test_x_1_y on test (y) where x = 1;
create index test_x_2_y on test (y) where x = 2;
vacuum analyze test;

Without the transformation of ORs to ANY, our planner manages to use
both indexes with a Bitmap scan.
# explain select * from test where (x = 1 or x = 2) and y = 100;
                                                  QUERY PLAN
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 Bitmap Heap Scan on test  (cost=8.60..12.62 rows=1 width=12)
   Recheck Cond: (((y = '100'::double precision) AND (x = 1)) OR ((y =
'100'::double precision) AND (x = 2)))
   ->  BitmapOr  (cost=8.60..8.60 rows=1 width=0)
         ->  Bitmap Index Scan on test_x_1_y  (cost=0.00..4.30 rows=1 width=0)
               Index Cond: (y = '100'::double precision)
         ->  Bitmap Index Scan on test_x_2_y  (cost=0.00..4.30 rows=1 width=0)
               Index Cond: (y = '100'::double precision)
(7 rows)

With transformation, the planner can't use indexes.
# explain select * from test where (x = 1 or x = 2) and y = 100;
                                 QUERY PLAN
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
 Gather  (cost=1000.00..12690.10 rows=1 width=12)
   Workers Planned: 2
   ->  Parallel Seq Scan on test  (cost=0.00..11690.00 rows=1 width=12)
         Filter: ((x = ANY (ARRAY[1, 2])) AND (y = '100'::double precision))
(4 rows)

The solution I see would be to tech Bitmap scan to handle ANY clause
in the same way as the OR clause.  I think the entry point for the
relevant logic is the choose_bitmap_and() function.

Regarding the GUC parameter, I don't see we need a limit.  It's not
yet clear whether a small number or a large number of OR clauses are
more favorable for transformation.  I propose to have just a boolean
enable_or_transformation GUC.

Links
1. https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/6b97b517-f36a-f0c6-3b3a-0cf8cfba220c%40yandex.ru
2. https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/938d82e1-98df-6553-334c-9db7c4e288ae%40yandex.ru

------
Regards,
Alexander Korotkov

Hi, Alena!

Thank you for your work on the subject.

On Wed, Oct 4, 2023 at 10:21 PM a.rybakina <a.rybakina@postgrespro.ru> wrote:

I fixed the kernel dump issue and all the regression tests were successful, but I discovered another problem when I added my own regression tests.
Some queries that contain "or" expressions do not convert to "ANY". I have described this in more detail using diff as expected and real results:

diff -U3 /home/alena/postgrespro__copy6/src/test/regress/expected/create_index.out /home/alena/postgrespro__copy6/src/test/regress/results/create_index.out
--- /home/alena/postgrespro__copy6/src/test/regress/expected/create_index.out 2023-10-04 21:54:12.496282667 +0300
+++ /home/alena/postgrespro__copy6/src/test/regress/results/create_index.out  2023-10-04 21:55:41.665422459 +0300
@@ -1925,17 +1925,20 @@ EXPLAIN (COSTS OFF) SELECT count(*) FROM tenk1   WHERE thousand = 42 AND (tenthous = 1 OR tenthous = 3) OR thousand = 41;
-                                               QUERY PLAN
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
+                                                        QUERY PLAN
+---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------  Aggregate    ->  Bitmap Heap Scan on tenk1
-         Recheck Cond: (((thousand = 42) AND (tenthous = ANY ('{1,3}'::integer[]))) OR (thousand = 41))
+         Recheck Cond: ((((thousand = 42) AND (tenthous = 1)) OR ((thousand = 42) AND (tenthous = 3))) OR (thousand = 41))          ->  BitmapOr
-               ->  Bitmap Index Scan on tenk1_thous_tenthous
-                     Index Cond: ((thousand = 42) AND (tenthous = ANY ('{1,3}'::integer[])))
+               ->  BitmapOr
+                     ->  Bitmap Index Scan on tenk1_thous_tenthous
+                           Index Cond: ((thousand = 42) AND (tenthous = 1))
+                     ->  Bitmap Index Scan on tenk1_thous_tenthous
+                           Index Cond: ((thousand = 42) AND (tenthous = 3))                ->  Bitmap Index Scan on tenk1_thous_tenthous                      Index Cond: (thousand = 41)
-(8 rows)
+(11 rows)

I think this query is not converted, because you only convert
top-level ORs in the transform_ors() function.  But in the example
given, the target OR lays under AND, which in turn lays under another
OR.  I think you need to make transform_ors() recursive to handle
cases like this.

I wonder about the default value of the parameter or_transform_limit
of 500. In [1] and [2] you show the execution time degradation from 0
to ~500 OR clauses.  I made a simple SQL script with the query "SELECT
* FROM pgbench_accounts a WHERE  aid = 1 OR aid = 2 OR ... OR aid =
100;". The pgbench results for a single connection in prepared mode
are the following.
master: 936 tps
patched (or_transform_limit == 0) :1414 tps
So, transformation to ANY obviously accelerates the execution.

I think it's important to identify the cases where this patch causes
the degradation.  Generally, I don't see why ANY could be executed
slower than the equivalent OR clause.  So, the possible degradation
cases are slower plan generation and worse plans.  I managed to find
both.

As you stated before, currently the OR transformation has a quadratic
complexity depending on the number of or-clause-groups.  I made a
simple test to evaluate this. containing 10000 or-clause-groups.
SELECT * FROM pgbench_accounts a WHERE aid + 1 * bid = 1 OR aid + 2 *
bid = 1 OR ... OR aid + 10000 * bid = 1;
master: 316ms
patched: 7142ms
Note, that the current or_transform_limit GUC parameter is not capable
of cutting such cases, because it cuts cases lower than the limit not
higher than the limit.  In the comment, you mention that we could
invent something like hash to handle this.  Hash should be nice, but
the problem is that we currently don't have a generic facility to hash
nodes (or even order them).  It would be nice to add this facility,
that would be quite a piece of work.  I would propose to limit this
patch for now to handle just a single Var node as a non-const side of
the clause and implement a simple hash for Vars.

I agree with your suggestion to try adding hashing. I'll take a closer look at this.

Another problem is the possible generation of worse plans.  I made an
example table with two partial indexes.
create table test as (select (random()*10)::int x, (random()*1000) y
from generate_series(1,1000000) i);
create index test_x_1_y on test (y) where x = 1;
create index test_x_2_y on test (y) where x = 2;
vacuum analyze test;

Without the transformation of ORs to ANY, our planner manages to use
both indexes with a Bitmap scan.
# explain select * from test where (x = 1 or x = 2) and y = 100;                                                  QUERY PLAN
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Bitmap Heap Scan on test  (cost=8.60..12.62 rows=1 width=12)   Recheck Cond: (((y = '100'::double precision) AND (x = 1)) OR ((y =
'100'::double precision) AND (x = 2)))   ->  BitmapOr  (cost=8.60..8.60 rows=1 width=0)         ->  Bitmap Index Scan on test_x_1_y  (cost=0.00..4.30 rows=1 width=0)               Index Cond: (y = '100'::double precision)         ->  Bitmap Index Scan on test_x_2_y  (cost=0.00..4.30 rows=1 width=0)               Index Cond: (y = '100'::double precision)
(7 rows)

With transformation, the planner can't use indexes.
# explain select * from test where (x = 1 or x = 2) and y = 100;                                 QUERY PLAN
----------------------------------------------------------------------------- Gather  (cost=1000.00..12690.10 rows=1 width=12)   Workers Planned: 2   ->  Parallel Seq Scan on test  (cost=0.00..11690.00 rows=1 width=12)         Filter: ((x = ANY (ARRAY[1, 2])) AND (y = '100'::double precision))
(4 rows)

The solution I see would be to tech Bitmap scan to handle ANY clause
in the same way as the OR clause.  I think the entry point for the
relevant logic is the choose_bitmap_and() function.

Regarding the GUC parameter, I don't see we need a limit.  It's not
yet clear whether a small number or a large number of OR clauses are
more favorable for transformation.  I propose to have just a boolean
enable_or_transformation GUC.

Links
1. https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/6b97b517-f36a-f0c6-3b3a-0cf8cfba220c%40yandex.ru
2. https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/938d82e1-98df-6553-334c-9db7c4e288ae%40yandex.ru

I tend to agree with you and I see that in some cases it really doesn't help.

Hi!

On 15.10.2023 01:34, Alexander Korotkov wrote:
> Hi, Alena!
>
> Thank you for your work on the subject.
>
> On Wed, Oct 4, 2023 at 10:21 PM a.rybakina <a.rybakina@postgrespro.ru> wrote:
>> I fixed the kernel dump issue and all the regression tests were successful, but I discovered another problem when I
addedmy own regression tests.
 
>> Some queries that contain "or" expressions do not convert to "ANY". I have described this in more detail using diff
asexpected and real results:
 
>>
>> diff -U3 /home/alena/postgrespro__copy6/src/test/regress/expected/create_index.out
/home/alena/postgrespro__copy6/src/test/regress/results/create_index.out
>> --- /home/alena/postgrespro__copy6/src/test/regress/expected/create_index.out 2023-10-04 21:54:12.496282667 +0300
>> +++ /home/alena/postgrespro__copy6/src/test/regress/results/create_index.out  2023-10-04 21:55:41.665422459 +0300
>> @@ -1925,17 +1925,20 @@
>>   EXPLAIN (COSTS OFF)
>>   SELECT count(*) FROM tenk1
>>     WHERE thousand = 42 AND (tenthous = 1 OR tenthous = 3) OR thousand = 41;
>> -                                               QUERY PLAN
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>> +                                                        QUERY PLAN
>>
+---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>    Aggregate
>>      ->  Bitmap Heap Scan on tenk1
>> -         Recheck Cond: (((thousand = 42) AND (tenthous = ANY ('{1,3}'::integer[]))) OR (thousand = 41))
>> +         Recheck Cond: ((((thousand = 42) AND (tenthous = 1)) OR ((thousand = 42) AND (tenthous = 3))) OR (thousand
=41))
 
>>            ->  BitmapOr
>> -               ->  Bitmap Index Scan on tenk1_thous_tenthous
>> -                     Index Cond: ((thousand = 42) AND (tenthous = ANY ('{1,3}'::integer[])))
>> +               ->  BitmapOr
>> +                     ->  Bitmap Index Scan on tenk1_thous_tenthous
>> +                           Index Cond: ((thousand = 42) AND (tenthous = 1))
>> +                     ->  Bitmap Index Scan on tenk1_thous_tenthous
>> +                           Index Cond: ((thousand = 42) AND (tenthous = 3))
>>                  ->  Bitmap Index Scan on tenk1_thous_tenthous
>>                        Index Cond: (thousand = 41)
>> -(8 rows)
>> +(11 rows)
> I think this query is not converted, because you only convert
> top-level ORs in the transform_ors() function.  But in the example
> given, the target OR lays under AND, which in turn lays under another
> OR.  I think you need to make transform_ors() recursive to handle
> cases like this.
>
> I wonder about the default value of the parameter or_transform_limit
> of 500. In [1] and [2] you show the execution time degradation from 0
> to ~500 OR clauses.  I made a simple SQL script with the query "SELECT
> * FROM pgbench_accounts a WHERE  aid = 1 OR aid = 2 OR ... OR aid =
> 100;". The pgbench results for a single connection in prepared mode
> are the following.
> master: 936 tps
> patched (or_transform_limit == 0) :1414 tps
> So, transformation to ANY obviously accelerates the execution.
>
> I think it's important to identify the cases where this patch causes
> the degradation.  Generally, I don't see why ANY could be executed
> slower than the equivalent OR clause.  So, the possible degradation
> cases are slower plan generation and worse plans.  I managed to find
> both.
>
> As you stated before, currently the OR transformation has a quadratic
> complexity depending on the number of or-clause-groups.  I made a
> simple test to evaluate this. containing 10000 or-clause-groups.
> SELECT * FROM pgbench_accounts a WHERE aid + 1 * bid = 1 OR aid + 2 *
> bid = 1 OR ... OR aid + 10000 * bid = 1;
> master: 316ms
> patched: 7142ms
> Note, that the current or_transform_limit GUC parameter is not capable
> of cutting such cases, because it cuts cases lower than the limit not
> higher than the limit.  In the comment, you mention that we could
> invent something like hash to handle this.  Hash should be nice, but
> the problem is that we currently don't have a generic facility to hash
> nodes (or even order them).  It would be nice to add this facility,
> that would be quite a piece of work.  I would propose to limit this
> patch for now to handle just a single Var node as a non-const side of
> the clause and implement a simple hash for Vars.
>
> Another problem is the possible generation of worse plans.  I made an
> example table with two partial indexes.
> create table test as (select (random()*10)::int x, (random()*1000) y
> from generate_series(1,1000000) i);
> create index test_x_1_y on test (y) where x = 1;
> create index test_x_2_y on test (y) where x = 2;
> vacuum analyze test;
>
> Without the transformation of ORs to ANY, our planner manages to use
> both indexes with a Bitmap scan.
> # explain select * from test where (x = 1 or x = 2) and y = 100;
>                                                    QUERY PLAN
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>   Bitmap Heap Scan on test  (cost=8.60..12.62 rows=1 width=12)
>     Recheck Cond: (((y = '100'::double precision) AND (x = 1)) OR ((y =
> '100'::double precision) AND (x = 2)))
>     ->  BitmapOr  (cost=8.60..8.60 rows=1 width=0)
>           ->  Bitmap Index Scan on test_x_1_y  (cost=0.00..4.30 rows=1 width=0)
>                 Index Cond: (y = '100'::double precision)
>           ->  Bitmap Index Scan on test_x_2_y  (cost=0.00..4.30 rows=1 width=0)
>                 Index Cond: (y = '100'::double precision)
> (7 rows)
>
> With transformation, the planner can't use indexes.
> # explain select * from test where (x = 1 or x = 2) and y = 100;
>                                   QUERY PLAN
> -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>   Gather  (cost=1000.00..12690.10 rows=1 width=12)
>     Workers Planned: 2
>     ->  Parallel Seq Scan on test  (cost=0.00..11690.00 rows=1 width=12)
>           Filter: ((x = ANY (ARRAY[1, 2])) AND (y = '100'::double precision))
> (4 rows)
>
> The solution I see would be to tech Bitmap scan to handle ANY clause
> in the same way as the OR clause.  I think the entry point for the
> relevant logic is the choose_bitmap_and() function.
>
> Regarding the GUC parameter, I don't see we need a limit.  It's not
> yet clear whether a small number or a large number of OR clauses are
> more favorable for transformation.  I propose to have just a boolean
> enable_or_transformation GUC.
>
I removed the limit from the hook, left the option to enable it or not.

I replaced the data structure so that the groups were formed not in a 
list, but in a hash table. It seems to work fine, but I haven't figured 
out yet why in some cases the regression test results are different and 
the function doesn't work.

So far, I have formed a patch for the version where the conversion takes 
place in parsing, since so far this patch looks the most reliable for me

For convenience, I have formed a patch for the very first version so far.

I have a suspicion that the problem is in the part where we form a hash 
from a string. I'm still figuring it out.

On Sat, Oct 14, 2023 at 6:37 PM Alexander Korotkov <aekorotkov@gmail.com> wrote:
> Regarding the GUC parameter, I don't see we need a limit.  It's not
> yet clear whether a small number or a large number of OR clauses are
> more favorable for transformation.  I propose to have just a boolean
> enable_or_transformation GUC.

That's a poor solution. So is the GUC patch currently has
(or_transform_limit). What you need is a heuristic that figures out
fairly reliably whether the transformation is going to be better or
worse. Or else, do the whole thing in some other way that is always
same-or-better.

In general, adding GUCs makes sense when the user knows something that
we can't know. For example, shared_buffers makes some sense because,
even if we discovered how much memory the machine has, we can't know
how much of it the user wants to devote to PostgreSQL as opposed to
anything else. And track_io_timing makes sense because we can't know
whether the user wants to pay the price of gathering that additional
data. But GUCs are a poor way of handling cases where the real problem
is that we don't know what code to write. In this case, some queries
will be better with enable_or_transformation=on, and some will be
better with enable_or_transformation=off. Since we don't know which
will work out better, we make the user figure it out and set the GUC,
possibly differently for each query. That's terrible. It's the query
optimizer's whole job to figure out which transformations will speed
up the query. It shouldn't turn around and punt the decision back to
the user.

Notice that superficially-similar GUCs like enable_seqscan aren't
really the same thing at all. That's just for developer testing and
debugging. Nobody expects that you have to adjust that GUC on a
production system - ever.

--
Robert Haas
EDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com

Hi! Thank you for your feedback!

On Sat, Oct 14, 2023 at 6:37 PM Alexander Korotkov <aekorotkov@gmail.com> wrote:

Regarding the GUC parameter, I don't see we need a limit.  It's not
yet clear whether a small number or a large number of OR clauses are
more favorable for transformation.  I propose to have just a boolean
enable_or_transformation GUC.

That's a poor solution. So is the GUC patch currently has
(or_transform_limit). What you need is a heuristic that figures out
fairly reliably whether the transformation is going to be better or
worse. Or else, do the whole thing in some other way that is always
same-or-better.

In general, adding GUCs makes sense when the user knows something that
we can't know. For example, shared_buffers makes some sense because,
even if we discovered how much memory the machine has, we can't know
how much of it the user wants to devote to PostgreSQL as opposed to
anything else. And track_io_timing makes sense because we can't know
whether the user wants to pay the price of gathering that additional
data. But GUCs are a poor way of handling cases where the real problem
is that we don't know what code to write. In this case, some queries
will be better with enable_or_transformation=on, and some will be
better with enable_or_transformation=off. Since we don't know which
will work out better, we make the user figure it out and set the GUC,
possibly differently for each query. That's terrible. It's the query
optimizer's whole job to figure out which transformations will speed
up the query. It shouldn't turn around and punt the decision back to
the user.

Notice that superficially-similar GUCs like enable_seqscan aren't
really the same thing at all. That's just for developer testing and
debugging. Nobody expects that you have to adjust that GUC on a
production system - ever.

I noticed that the costs of expressions are different and it can help to assess when it is worth leaving the conversion, when not.

With small amounts of "OR" elements, the cost of orexpr is lower than with "ANY", on the contrary, higher.postgres=# SET or_transform_limit = 500;
EXPLAIN (analyze)
SELECT oid,relname FROM pg_class
WHERE
  oid = 13779 AND (oid = 2 OR oid = 4 OR oid = 5)
;
SET
                                                          QUERY PLAN                                                          
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 Index Scan using pg_class_oid_index on pg_class  (cost=0.27..8.30 rows=1 width=68) (actual time=0.105..0.106 rows=0 loops=1)
   Index Cond: (oid = '13779'::oid)
   Filter: ((oid = '2'::oid) OR (oid = '4'::oid) OR (oid = '5'::oid))
 Planning Time: 0.323 ms
 Execution Time: 0.160 ms

(5 rows)

postgres=# SET or_transform_limit = 0;
EXPLAIN (analyze)
SELECT oid,relname FROM pg_class
WHERE
  oid = 13779 AND (oid = 2 OR oid = 4 OR oid = 5)
;
SET
                                                          QUERY PLAN                                                           
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 Index Scan using pg_class_oid_index on pg_class  (cost=0.27..16.86 rows=1 width=68) (actual time=0.160..0.161 rows=0 loops=1)
   Index Cond: ((oid = ANY (ARRAY['2'::oid, '4'::oid, '5'::oid])) AND (oid = '13779'::oid))
 Planning Time: 4.515 ms
 Execution Time: 0.313 ms
(4 rows)

Index Scan using pg_class_oid_index on pg_class  (cost=0.27..2859.42 rows=414 width=68) (actual time=1.504..34.183 rows=260 loops=1)
   Index Cond: (oid = ANY (ARRAY['1'::oid, '2'::oid, '3'::oid, '4'::oid, '5'::oid, '6'::oid, '7'::oid,

Bitmap Heap Scan on pg_class  (cost=43835.00..54202.14 rows=414 width=68) (actual time=39.958..41.293 rows=260 loops=1)
   Recheck Cond: ((oid = '1'::oid) OR (oid = '2'::oid) OR (oid = '3'::oid) OR (oid = '4'::oid) OR (oid =
I think we could see which value is lower, and if lower with expressions converted to ANY, then work with it further, otherwise work with the original "OR" expressions. But we still need to make this conversion to find out its cost.

In addition, I will definitely have to postpone the transformation of "OR" to "ANY" at the stage of creating indexes (?) or maybe a little earlier so that I have to count only the cost of the transformed expression.

On Thu, Oct 26, 2023 at 3:47 PM Alena Rybakina
<a.rybakina@postgrespro.ru> wrote:
> With small amounts of "OR" elements, the cost of orexpr is lower than with "ANY", on the contrary, higher.

Alexander's example seems to show that it's not that simple. If I'm
reading his example correctly, with things like aid = 1, the
transformation usually wins even if the number of things in the OR
expression is large, but with things like aid + 1 * bid = 1, the
transformation seems to lose at least with larger numbers of items. So
it's not JUST the number of OR elements but also what they contain,
unless I'm misunderstanding his point.

> Index Scan using pg_class_oid_index on pg_class  (cost=0.27..2859.42 rows=414 width=68) (actual time=1.504..34.183
rows=260loops=1) 
>    Index Cond: (oid = ANY (ARRAY['1'::oid, '2'::oid, '3'::oid, '4'::oid, '5'::oid, '6'::oid, '7'::oid,
>
> Bitmap Heap Scan on pg_class  (cost=43835.00..54202.14 rows=414 width=68) (actual time=39.958..41.293 rows=260
loops=1)
>    Recheck Cond: ((oid = '1'::oid) OR (oid = '2'::oid) OR (oid = '3'::oid) OR (oid = '4'::oid) OR (oid =
>
> I think we could see which value is lower, and if lower with expressions converted to ANY, then work with it further,
otherwisework with the original "OR" expressions. But we still need to make this conversion to find out its cost. 

To me, this sort of output suggests that perhaps the transformation is
being done in the wrong place. I expect that we have to decide whether
to convert from OR to = ANY(...) at a very early stage of the planner,
before we have any idea what the selected path will ultimately be. But
this output suggests that we want the answer to depend on which kind
of path is going to be faster, which would seem to argue for doing
this sort of transformation as part of path generation for only those
paths that will benefit from it, rather than during earlier phases of
expression processing/simplification.

I'm not sure I have the full picture here, though, so I might have
this all wrong.

--
Robert Haas
EDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com

On 26.10.2023 22:58, Robert Haas wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 26, 2023 at 3:47 PM Alena Rybakina
> <a.rybakina@postgrespro.ru> wrote:
>> With small amounts of "OR" elements, the cost of orexpr is lower than with "ANY", on the contrary, higher.
> Alexander's example seems to show that it's not that simple. If I'm
> reading his example correctly, with things like aid = 1, the
> transformation usually wins even if the number of things in the OR
> expression is large, but with things like aid + 1 * bid = 1, the
> transformation seems to lose at least with larger numbers of items. So
> it's not JUST the number of OR elements but also what they contain,
> unless I'm misunderstanding his point.
Yes, I agree, with Alexander's example, this option will not help and 
here I need to look inside Expr itself. But I noticed that such a 
complex non-constant expression is always an OpExpr type, otherwise if 
the non-constant part contains only one variable, then it is a Var type. 
We can add a constraint that we will transform expressions with the 
simple variables like x=1 or x=2 or x=3, etc., but expressions like 
x*1+y=1 or x*2+y=2... we ignore.

But then, we do not consider expressions when the nonconstant part is 
always the same for expressions. For example, we could transform x*1+y=1 
or x*1+y=2... to x*1+y = ANY([1,2,...]). But I think it's not so 
critical, because such cases are rare.
>
>> Index Scan using pg_class_oid_index on pg_class  (cost=0.27..2859.42 rows=414 width=68) (actual time=1.504..34.183
rows=260loops=1)
 
>>     Index Cond: (oid = ANY (ARRAY['1'::oid, '2'::oid, '3'::oid, '4'::oid, '5'::oid, '6'::oid, '7'::oid,
>>
>> Bitmap Heap Scan on pg_class  (cost=43835.00..54202.14 rows=414 width=68) (actual time=39.958..41.293 rows=260
loops=1)
>>     Recheck Cond: ((oid = '1'::oid) OR (oid = '2'::oid) OR (oid = '3'::oid) OR (oid = '4'::oid) OR (oid =
>>
>> I think we could see which value is lower, and if lower with expressions converted to ANY, then work with it
further,otherwise work with the original "OR" expressions. But we still need to make this conversion to find out its
cost.
> To me, this sort of output suggests that perhaps the transformation is
> being done in the wrong place. I expect that we have to decide whether
> to convert from OR to = ANY(...) at a very early stage of the planner,
> before we have any idea what the selected path will ultimately be. But
> this output suggests that we want the answer to depend on which kind
> of path is going to be faster, which would seem to argue for doing
> this sort of transformation as part of path generation for only those
> paths that will benefit from it, rather than during earlier phases of
> expression processing/simplification.
>
> I'm not sure I have the full picture here, though, so I might have
> this all wrong.
>
This would be the most ideal option, and to be honest, I like the 
conversion at an early stage also because there are no problems with 
selectivity or link updates if we changed the structure of RestrictInfo 
of relation.

But in terms of calculating which option is better to use transformed or 
original, I think this solution might be complicated, since we need not 
only to highlight the cases in which the transformation wins in 
principle, but also with which types of data it will work best and there 
is a risk of missing some cases and we may need the own evaluation 
model. Now it's hard for me to come up with something simple.

The cost option seems simpler and clearer to me, but yes, it is 
difficult to decide when it is better to do the conversion for the most 
correct estimate.


-- 
Regards,
Alena Rybakina

On Thu, Oct 26, 2023 at 12:59 PM Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com> wrote:
> Alexander's example seems to show that it's not that simple. If I'm
> reading his example correctly, with things like aid = 1, the
> transformation usually wins even if the number of things in the OR
> expression is large, but with things like aid + 1 * bid = 1, the
> transformation seems to lose at least with larger numbers of items. So
> it's not JUST the number of OR elements but also what they contain,
> unless I'm misunderstanding his point.

Alexander said "Generally, I don't see why ANY could be executed
slower than the equivalent OR clause". I understood that this was his
way of expressing the following idea:

"In principle, there is no reason to expect execution of ANY() to be
slower than execution of an equivalent OR clause (except for
noise-level differences). While it might not actually look that way
for every single type of plan you can imagine right now, that doesn't
argue for making a cost-based decision. It actually argues for fixing
the underlying issue, which can't possibly be due to some kind of
fundamental advantage enjoyed by expression evaluation with ORs".

This is also what I think of all this.

Alexander's partial index example had this quality to it. Obviously,
the planner *could* be taught to do the right thing with such a case,
with a little more work. The fact that it doesn't right now is
definitely a problem, and should probably be treated as a blocker for
this patch. But that doesn't really argue against the general idea
behind the patch -- it just argues for fixing that one problem.

There may also be a separate problem that comes from the added planner
cycles required to do the transformation -- particularly in extreme or
adversarial cases. We should worry about that, too. But, again, it
doesn't change the basic fact, which is that having a
standard/normalized representation of OR lists/DNF transformation is
extremely useful in general, and *shouldn't* result in any real
slowdowns at execution time if done well.

> To me, this sort of output suggests that perhaps the transformation is
> being done in the wrong place. I expect that we have to decide whether
> to convert from OR to = ANY(...) at a very early stage of the planner,
> before we have any idea what the selected path will ultimately be. But
> this output suggests that we want the answer to depend on which kind
> of path is going to be faster, which would seem to argue for doing
> this sort of transformation as part of path generation for only those
> paths that will benefit from it, rather than during earlier phases of
> expression processing/simplification.

I don't think that that's the right direction. They're semantically
equivalent things. But a SAOP-based plan can be fundamentally better,
since SAOPs enable passing down useful context to index AMs (at least
nbtree). And because we can use a hash table for SAOP expression
evaluation. It's a higher level, standardized, well optimized way of
expressing exactly the same concept.

I can come up with a case that'll be orders of magnitude more
efficient with this patch, despite the transformation process only
affecting a small OR list of 3 or 5 elements -- a 100x reduction in
heap page accesses is quite possible. This is particularly likely to
come up if you assume that the nbtree patch that I'm currently working
on is also available. In general, I think that we totally over-rely on
bitmap index scans, especially BitmapOrs.

--
Peter Geoghegan

Hi!

On Thu, Oct 26, 2023 at 12:59 PM Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com> wrote:

Alexander's example seems to show that it's not that simple. If I'm
reading his example correctly, with things like aid = 1, the
transformation usually wins even if the number of things in the OR
expression is large, but with things like aid + 1 * bid = 1, the
transformation seems to lose at least with larger numbers of items. So
it's not JUST the number of OR elements but also what they contain,
unless I'm misunderstanding his point.

Alexander said "Generally, I don't see why ANY could be executed
slower than the equivalent OR clause". I understood that this was his
way of expressing the following idea:

"In principle, there is no reason to expect execution of ANY() to be
slower than execution of an equivalent OR clause (except for
noise-level differences). While it might not actually look that way
for every single type of plan you can imagine right now, that doesn't
argue for making a cost-based decision. It actually argues for fixing
the underlying issue, which can't possibly be due to some kind of
fundamental advantage enjoyed by expression evaluation with ORs".

This is also what I think of all this.

Alexander's partial index example had this quality to it. Obviously,
the planner *could* be taught to do the right thing with such a case,
with a little more work. The fact that it doesn't right now is
definitely a problem, and should probably be treated as a blocker for
this patch. But that doesn't really argue against the general idea
behind the patch -- it just argues for fixing that one problem.

There may also be a separate problem that comes from the added planner
cycles required to do the transformation -- particularly in extreme or
adversarial cases. We should worry about that, too. But, again, it
doesn't change the basic fact, which is that having a
standard/normalized representation of OR lists/DNF transformation is
extremely useful in general, and *shouldn't* result in any real
slowdowns at execution time if done well.

To me, this sort of output suggests that perhaps the transformation is
being done in the wrong place. I expect that we have to decide whether
to convert from OR to = ANY(...) at a very early stage of the planner,
before we have any idea what the selected path will ultimately be. But
this output suggests that we want the answer to depend on which kind
of path is going to be faster, which would seem to argue for doing
this sort of transformation as part of path generation for only those
paths that will benefit from it, rather than during earlier phases of
expression processing/simplification.

I don't think that that's the right direction. They're semantically
equivalent things. But a SAOP-based plan can be fundamentally better,
since SAOPs enable passing down useful context to index AMs (at least
nbtree). And because we can use a hash table for SAOP expression
evaluation. It's a higher level, standardized, well optimized way of
expressing exactly the same concept.

I can come up with a case that'll be orders of magnitude more
efficient with this patch, despite the transformation process only
affecting a small OR list of 3 or 5 elements -- a 100x reduction in
heap page accesses is quite possible. This is particularly likely to
come up if you assume that the nbtree patch that I'm currently working
on is also available. In general, I think that we totally over-rely on
bitmap index scans, especially BitmapOrs.

-- 
Regards,
Alena Rybakina
Postgres Professional

On Thu, Oct 26, 2023 at 5:05 PM Peter Geoghegan <pg@bowt.ie> wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 26, 2023 at 12:59 PM Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com> wrote:
> > Alexander's example seems to show that it's not that simple. If I'm
> > reading his example correctly, with things like aid = 1, the
> > transformation usually wins even if the number of things in the OR
> > expression is large, but with things like aid + 1 * bid = 1, the
> > transformation seems to lose at least with larger numbers of items. So
> > it's not JUST the number of OR elements but also what they contain,
> > unless I'm misunderstanding his point.
>
> Alexander said "Generally, I don't see why ANY could be executed
> slower than the equivalent OR clause". I understood that this was his
> way of expressing the following idea:
>
> "In principle, there is no reason to expect execution of ANY() to be
> slower than execution of an equivalent OR clause (except for
> noise-level differences). While it might not actually look that way
> for every single type of plan you can imagine right now, that doesn't
> argue for making a cost-based decision. It actually argues for fixing
> the underlying issue, which can't possibly be due to some kind of
> fundamental advantage enjoyed by expression evaluation with ORs".
>
> This is also what I think of all this.

I agree with that, with some caveats, mainly that the reverse is to
some extent also true. Maybe not completely, because arguably the
ANY() formulation should just be straight-up easier to deal with, but
in principle, the two are equivalent and it shouldn't matter which
representation we pick.

But practically, it may, and we need to be sure that we don't put in
place a translation that is theoretically a win but in practice leads
to large regressions. Avoiding regressions here is more important than
capturing all the possible gains. A patch that wins in some scenarios
and does nothing in others can be committed; a patch that wins in even
more scenarios but causes serious regressions in some cases probably
can't.

--
Robert Haas
EDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com

On Mon, Oct 30, 2023 at 3:40 PM Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 26, 2023 at 5:05 PM Peter Geoghegan <pg@bowt.ie> wrote:
> > On Thu, Oct 26, 2023 at 12:59 PM Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > Alexander's example seems to show that it's not that simple. If I'm
> > > reading his example correctly, with things like aid = 1, the
> > > transformation usually wins even if the number of things in the OR
> > > expression is large, but with things like aid + 1 * bid = 1, the
> > > transformation seems to lose at least with larger numbers of items. So
> > > it's not JUST the number of OR elements but also what they contain,
> > > unless I'm misunderstanding his point.
> >
> > Alexander said "Generally, I don't see why ANY could be executed
> > slower than the equivalent OR clause". I understood that this was his
> > way of expressing the following idea:
> >
> > "In principle, there is no reason to expect execution of ANY() to be
> > slower than execution of an equivalent OR clause (except for
> > noise-level differences). While it might not actually look that way
> > for every single type of plan you can imagine right now, that doesn't
> > argue for making a cost-based decision. It actually argues for fixing
> > the underlying issue, which can't possibly be due to some kind of
> > fundamental advantage enjoyed by expression evaluation with ORs".
> >
> > This is also what I think of all this.
>
> I agree with that, with some caveats, mainly that the reverse is to
> some extent also true. Maybe not completely, because arguably the
> ANY() formulation should just be straight-up easier to deal with, but
> in principle, the two are equivalent and it shouldn't matter which
> representation we pick.
>
> But practically, it may, and we need to be sure that we don't put in
> place a translation that is theoretically a win but in practice leads
> to large regressions. Avoiding regressions here is more important than
> capturing all the possible gains. A patch that wins in some scenarios
> and does nothing in others can be committed; a patch that wins in even
> more scenarios but causes serious regressions in some cases probably
> can't.

+1
Sure, I've identified two cases where patch shows regression [1].  The
first one (quadratic complexity of expression processing) should be
already addressed by usage of hash.  The second one (planning
regression with Bitmap OR) is not yet addressed.

Links
1. https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/CAPpHfduJtO0s9E%3DSHUTzrCD88BH0eik0UNog1_q3XBF2wLmH6g%40mail.gmail.com

------
Regards,
Alexander Korotkov

On Mon, Oct 30, 2023 at 6:40 AM Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com> wrote:
> I agree with that, with some caveats, mainly that the reverse is to
> some extent also true. Maybe not completely, because arguably the
> ANY() formulation should just be straight-up easier to deal with, but
> in principle, the two are equivalent and it shouldn't matter which
> representation we pick.

I recently looked into MySQL's handling of these issues, which is more
mature and better documented than what we can do. EXPLAIN ANALYZE will
show an IN() list as if the query had been written as a list of ORs,
even though it can efficiently execute an index scan that uses
IN()/"OR var = constant" lists. So I agree with what you said here. It
is perhaps just as accident of history that we're talking about
converting to a ScalarArrayOpExpr, rather than talking about
converting to some other clause type that we associate with OR lists.

The essential point is that there ought to be one clause type that is
easier to deal with.

> But practically, it may, and we need to be sure that we don't put in
> place a translation that is theoretically a win but in practice leads
> to large regressions. Avoiding regressions here is more important than
> capturing all the possible gains. A patch that wins in some scenarios
> and does nothing in others can be committed; a patch that wins in even
> more scenarios but causes serious regressions in some cases probably
> can't.

I agree. Most of the really big wins here will come from simple
transformations. I see no reason why we can't take an incremental
approach. In fact I think we almost have to do so, since as I
understand it the transformations are just infeasible in certain
extreme cases.

--
Peter Geoghegan

On 30.10.2023 17:06, Alexander Korotkov wrote:
> On Mon, Oct 30, 2023 at 3:40 PM Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Thu, Oct 26, 2023 at 5:05 PM Peter Geoghegan <pg@bowt.ie> wrote:
>>> On Thu, Oct 26, 2023 at 12:59 PM Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> Alexander's example seems to show that it's not that simple. If I'm
>>>> reading his example correctly, with things like aid = 1, the
>>>> transformation usually wins even if the number of things in the OR
>>>> expression is large, but with things like aid + 1 * bid = 1, the
>>>> transformation seems to lose at least with larger numbers of items. So
>>>> it's not JUST the number of OR elements but also what they contain,
>>>> unless I'm misunderstanding his point.
>>> Alexander said "Generally, I don't see why ANY could be executed
>>> slower than the equivalent OR clause". I understood that this was his
>>> way of expressing the following idea:
>>>
>>> "In principle, there is no reason to expect execution of ANY() to be
>>> slower than execution of an equivalent OR clause (except for
>>> noise-level differences). While it might not actually look that way
>>> for every single type of plan you can imagine right now, that doesn't
>>> argue for making a cost-based decision. It actually argues for fixing
>>> the underlying issue, which can't possibly be due to some kind of
>>> fundamental advantage enjoyed by expression evaluation with ORs".
>>>
>>> This is also what I think of all this.
>> I agree with that, with some caveats, mainly that the reverse is to
>> some extent also true. Maybe not completely, because arguably the
>> ANY() formulation should just be straight-up easier to deal with, but
>> in principle, the two are equivalent and it shouldn't matter which
>> representation we pick.
>>
>> But practically, it may, and we need to be sure that we don't put in
>> place a translation that is theoretically a win but in practice leads
>> to large regressions. Avoiding regressions here is more important than
>> capturing all the possible gains. A patch that wins in some scenarios
>> and does nothing in others can be committed; a patch that wins in even
>> more scenarios but causes serious regressions in some cases probably
>> can't.
> +1
> Sure, I've identified two cases where patch shows regression [1].  The
> first one (quadratic complexity of expression processing) should be
> already addressed by usage of hash.  The second one (planning
> regression with Bitmap OR) is not yet addressed.
>
> Links
> 1. https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/CAPpHfduJtO0s9E%3DSHUTzrCD88BH0eik0UNog1_q3XBF2wLmH6g%40mail.gmail.com
>
I also support this approach. I have almost finished writing a patch 
that fixes the first problem related to the quadratic complexity of 
processing expressions by adding a hash table.

I also added a check: if the number of groups is equal to the number of 
OR expressions, we assume that no expressions need to be converted and 
interrupt further execution.

Now I am trying to fix the last problem in this patch: three tests have 
indicated a problem related to incorrect conversion. I don't think it 
can be serious, but I haven't figured out where the mistake is yet.

I added log like that: ERROR:  unrecognized node type: 0.

-- 
Regards,
Alena Rybakina
Postgres Professional

On 06.11.2023 16:51, Alena Rybakina wrote:
> I also support this approach. I have almost finished writing a patch 
> that fixes the first problem related to the quadratic complexity of 
> processing expressions by adding a hash table.
>
> I also added a check: if the number of groups is equal to the number 
> of OR expressions, we assume that no expressions need to be converted 
> and interrupt further execution.
>
> Now I am trying to fix the last problem in this patch: three tests 
> have indicated a problem related to incorrect conversion. I don't 
> think it can be serious, but I haven't figured out where the mistake 
> is yet.
>
> I added log like that: ERROR:  unrecognized node type: 0.

I fixed this issue and added some cosmetic refactoring.

The changes are presented in the or_patch_changes.diff file.

-- 
Regards,
Alena Rybakina
Postgres Professional

Hi, all!

These days I was porting a patch for converting or expressions to ANY to 
the choose_bitmap_and function. Unfortunately, it is not possible to 
transfer the conversion there, since expressions are processed one by 
one, as far as I saw. Therefore, I tried to make the conversion earlier 
in the generate_bitmap_or_paths function, there is just a loop bypass. 
The patch turns out to be quite complicated, in my opinion, and to be 
honest, it does not work fully yet. Also, due to the fact that the index 
for the ScalarOpExpr expression is created earlier (approximately 344 
lines in the src/backend/optimizer/path/indxpath.c file), we had to call 
the generate_bitmap_or_paths function earlier. I haven't seen yet what 
problems this could potentially lead to. Patch in the attached diff file.

In the last letter, I had an incorrect numbering for the original patch, 
corrected, respectively, it is unclear whether the tests in CI were 
normal. Corrected it.

On 10/11/2023 16:20, Alena Rybakina wrote:
>> I added log like that: ERROR:  unrecognized node type: 0.
> I fixed this issue and added some cosmetic refactoring.
> The changes are presented in the or_patch_changes.diff file.

Looking into the patch, I found some trivial improvements (see attachment).
Also, it is not obvious that using a string representation of the clause 
as a hash table key is needed here. Also, by making a copy of the node 
in the get_key_nconst_node(), you replace the location field, but in the 
case of complex expression, you don't do the same with other nodes.
I propose to generate expression hash instead + prove the equality of 
two expressions by calling equal().

-- 
regards,
Andrei Lepikhov
Postgres Professional

On 20.11.2023 11:52, Andrei Lepikhov wrote:
> On 10/11/2023 16:20, Alena Rybakina wrote:
>>> I added log like that: ERROR: unrecognized node type: 0.
>> I fixed this issue and added some cosmetic refactoring.
>> The changes are presented in the or_patch_changes.diff file.
>
> Looking into the patch, I found some trivial improvements (see 
> attachment).
> Also, it is not obvious that using a string representation of the 
> clause as a hash table key is needed here. Also, by making a copy of 
> the node in the get_key_nconst_node(), you replace the location field, 
> but in the case of complex expression, you don't do the same with 
> other nodes.
> I propose to generate expression hash instead + prove the equality of 
> two expressions by calling equal().
>
Thank you! I agree with your changes.

On 20.11.2023 11:52, Andrei Lepikhov wrote:
> Looking into the patch, I found some trivial improvements (see 
> attachment).
> Also, it is not obvious that using a string representation of the 
> clause as a hash table key is needed here. Also, by making a copy of 
> the node in the get_key_nconst_node(), you replace the location field, 
> but in the case of complex expression, you don't do the same with 
> other nodes.
> I propose to generate expression hash instead + prove the equality of 
> two expressions by calling equal().
>
I was thinking about your last email and a possible error where the 
location field may not be cleared in complex expressions. Unfortunately, 
I didn't come up with any examples either, but I think I was able to 
handle this with a special function that removes location-related 
patterns. The alternative to this is to bypass this expression, but I 
think it will be more invasive. In addition, I have added changes 
related to the hash table: now the key is of type int.

All changes are displayed in the attached 
v9-0001-Replace-OR-clause-to_ANY.diff.txt file.

I haven't measured it yet. But what do you think about these changes?


-- 
Regards,
Alena Rybakina
Postgres Professional

On 21.11.2023 03:50, Alena Rybakina wrote:
> On 20.11.2023 11:52, Andrei Lepikhov wrote:
>> Looking into the patch, I found some trivial improvements (see 
>> attachment).
>> Also, it is not obvious that using a string representation of the 
>> clause as a hash table key is needed here. Also, by making a copy of 
>> the node in the get_key_nconst_node(), you replace the location 
>> field, but in the case of complex expression, you don't do the same 
>> with other nodes.
>> I propose to generate expression hash instead + prove the equality of 
>> two expressions by calling equal().
>>
> I was thinking about your last email and a possible error where the 
> location field may not be cleared in complex expressions. 
> Unfortunately, I didn't come up with any examples either, but I think 
> I was able to handle this with a special function that removes 
> location-related patterns. The alternative to this is to bypass this 
> expression, but I think it will be more invasive. In addition, I have 
> added changes related to the hash table: now the key is of type int.
>
> All changes are displayed in the attached 
> v9-0001-Replace-OR-clause-to_ANY.diff.txt file.
>
> I haven't measured it yet. But what do you think about these changes?
>
>
Sorry, I lost your changes  during the revision process. I returned 
them. I raised the patch version just in case to run ci successfully.

-- 
Regards,
Alena Rybakina
Postgres Professional

On 21/11/2023 18:31, Alena Rybakina wrote:
> Sorry, I lost your changes  during the revision process. I returned 
> them. I raised the patch version just in case to run ci successfully.

I think the usage of nodeToString for the generation of clause hash is 
too expensive and buggy.
Also, in the code, you didn't resolve hash collisions. So, I've 
rewritten the patch a bit (see the attachment).
One more thing: I propose to enable transformation by default at least 
for quick detection of possible issues.
This code changes tests in many places. But, as I see it, it mostly 
demonstrates the positive effect of the transformation.

-- 
regards,
Andrei Lepikhov
Postgres Professional

On 23/11/2023 16:23, Andrei Lepikhov wrote:
> This code changes tests in many places. But, as I see it, it mostly 
> demonstrates the positive effect of the transformation.

I found out that the postgres_fdw tests were impacted by the feature. 
Fix it, because the patch is on the commitfest and passes buildfarm.
Taking advantage of this, I suppressed the expression evaluation 
procedure to make regression test changes more clear.

-- 
regards,
Andrei Lepikhov
Postgres Professional

On 23.11.2023 12:23, Andrei Lepikhov wrote:
> I think the usage of nodeToString for the generation of clause hash is 
> too expensive and buggy.
> Also, in the code, you didn't resolve hash collisions. So, I've 
> rewritten the patch a bit (see the attachment).
> One more thing: I propose to enable transformation by default at least 
> for quick detection of possible issues.
> This code changes tests in many places. But, as I see it, it mostly 
> demonstrates the positive effect of the transformation.

On 24.11.2023 06:30, Andrei Lepikhov wrote:

> On 23/11/2023 16:23, Andrei Lepikhov wrote:
>> This code changes tests in many places. But, as I see it, it mostly 
>> demonstrates the positive effect of the transformation.
>
> I found out that the postgres_fdw tests were impacted by the feature. 
> Fix it, because the patch is on the commitfest and passes buildfarm.
> Taking advantage of this, I suppressed the expression evaluation 
> procedure to make regression test changes more clear.

Thank you for your work. You are right, the patch with the current 
changes looks better and works more correctly.

To be honest, I didn't think we could use JumbleExpr in this way.

-- 
Regards,
Alena Rybakina
Postgres Professional

Hi!

On Mon, Nov 13, 2023 at 9:48 PM a.rybakina <a.rybakina@postgrespro.ru> wrote:
> These days I was porting a patch for converting or expressions to ANY to
> the choose_bitmap_and function. Unfortunately, it is not possible to
> transfer the conversion there, since expressions are processed one by
> one, as far as I saw. Therefore, I tried to make the conversion earlier
> in the generate_bitmap_or_paths function, there is just a loop bypass.
> The patch turns out to be quite complicated, in my opinion, and to be
> honest, it does not work fully yet. Also, due to the fact that the index
> for the ScalarOpExpr expression is created earlier (approximately 344
> lines in the src/backend/optimizer/path/indxpath.c file), we had to call
> the generate_bitmap_or_paths function earlier. I haven't seen yet what
> problems this could potentially lead to. Patch in the attached diff file.

It seems to me there is a confusion.  I didn't mean we need to move
conversion of OR-expressions to ANY into choose_bitmap_and() function
or anything like this.  My idea was to avoid degradation of plans,
which I've seen in [1].  Current code for generation of bitmap paths
considers the possibility to split OR-expressions into distinct bitmap
index scans.  But it doesn't consider this possibility for
ANY-expressions.  So, my idea was to enhance our bitmap scan
generation to consider split values of ANY-expressions into distinct
bitmap index scans.  So, in the example [1] and similar queries
conversion of OR-expressions to ANY wouldn't affect the generation of
bitmap paths.

Links
1. https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/CAPpHfduJtO0s9E=SHUTzrCD88BH0eik0UNog1_q3XBF2wLmH6g@mail.gmail.com

------
Regards,
Alexander Korotkov

On Fri, Nov 24, 2023 at 7:05 AM Alena Rybakina
<a.rybakina@postgrespro.ru> wrote:
> On 23.11.2023 12:23, Andrei Lepikhov wrote:
> > I think the usage of nodeToString for the generation of clause hash is
> > too expensive and buggy.
> > Also, in the code, you didn't resolve hash collisions. So, I've
> > rewritten the patch a bit (see the attachment).
> > One more thing: I propose to enable transformation by default at least
> > for quick detection of possible issues.
> > This code changes tests in many places. But, as I see it, it mostly
> > demonstrates the positive effect of the transformation.
>
> On 24.11.2023 06:30, Andrei Lepikhov wrote:
>
> > On 23/11/2023 16:23, Andrei Lepikhov wrote:
> >> This code changes tests in many places. But, as I see it, it mostly
> >> demonstrates the positive effect of the transformation.
> >
> > I found out that the postgres_fdw tests were impacted by the feature.
> > Fix it, because the patch is on the commitfest and passes buildfarm.
> > Taking advantage of this, I suppressed the expression evaluation
> > procedure to make regression test changes more clear.
>
> Thank you for your work. You are right, the patch with the current
> changes looks better and works more correctly.
>
> To be honest, I didn't think we could use JumbleExpr in this way.

I think patch certainly gets better in this aspect.  One thing I can't
understand is why do we use home-grown code for resolving
hash-collisions.  You can just define custom hash and match functions
in HASHCTL.  Even if we need to avoid repeated JumbleExpr calls, we
still can save pre-calculated hash value into hash entry and use
custom hash and match.  This doesn't imply us to write our own
collision-resolving code.

------
Regards,
Alexander Korotkov

It seems to me there is a confusion.  I didn't mean we need to move
conversion of OR-expressions to ANY into choose_bitmap_and() function
or anything like this.  My idea was to avoid degradation of plans,
which I've seen in [1].  Current code for generation of bitmap paths
considers the possibility to split OR-expressions into distinct bitmap
index scans.  But it doesn't consider this possibility for
ANY-expressions.  So, my idea was to enhance our bitmap scan
generation to consider split values of ANY-expressions into distinct
bitmap index scans.  So, in the example [1] and similar queries
conversion of OR-expressions to ANY wouldn't affect the generation of
bitmap paths.

-- 
Regards,
Alena Rybakina
Postgres Professional

On Sat, Nov 25, 2023 at 1:10 PM Alena Rybakina
<a.rybakina@postgrespro.ru> wrote:
> On 25.11.2023 04:13, Alexander Korotkov wrote:
>
> It seems to me there is a confusion.  I didn't mean we need to move
> conversion of OR-expressions to ANY into choose_bitmap_and() function
> or anything like this.  My idea was to avoid degradation of plans,
> which I've seen in [1].  Current code for generation of bitmap paths
> considers the possibility to split OR-expressions into distinct bitmap
> index scans.  But it doesn't consider this possibility for
> ANY-expressions.  So, my idea was to enhance our bitmap scan
> generation to consider split values of ANY-expressions into distinct
> bitmap index scans.  So, in the example [1] and similar queries
> conversion of OR-expressions to ANY wouldn't affect the generation of
> bitmap paths.
>
> Thanks for the explanation, yes, I did not understand the idea correctly at first. I will try to implement something
similar.

Alena, great, thank you.  I'm looking forward to the updated patch.

------
Regards,
Alexander Korotkov

On 25/11/2023 08:23, Alexander Korotkov wrote:
> I think patch certainly gets better in this aspect.  One thing I can't
> understand is why do we use home-grown code for resolving
> hash-collisions.  You can just define custom hash and match functions
> in HASHCTL.  Even if we need to avoid repeated JumbleExpr calls, we
> still can save pre-calculated hash value into hash entry and use
> custom hash and match.  This doesn't imply us to write our own
> collision-resolving code.

Thanks, it was an insightful suggestion.
I implemented it, and the code has become shorter (see attachment).

-- 
regards,
Andrei Lepikhov
Postgres Professional

On Mon, Nov 27, 2023 at 3:02 AM Andrei Lepikhov
<a.lepikhov@postgrespro.ru> wrote:
> On 25/11/2023 08:23, Alexander Korotkov wrote:
> > I think patch certainly gets better in this aspect.  One thing I can't
> > understand is why do we use home-grown code for resolving
> > hash-collisions.  You can just define custom hash and match functions
> > in HASHCTL.  Even if we need to avoid repeated JumbleExpr calls, we
> > still can save pre-calculated hash value into hash entry and use
> > custom hash and match.  This doesn't imply us to write our own
> > collision-resolving code.
>
> Thanks, it was an insightful suggestion.
> I implemented it, and the code has become shorter (see attachment).

Neither the code comments nor the commit message really explain the
design idea here. That's unfortunate, principally because it makes
review difficult.

I'm very skeptical about the idea of using JumbleExpr for any part of
this. It seems fairly expensive, and it might produce false matches.
If expensive is OK, then why not just use equal()? If it's not, then
this probably isn't really OK either. But in any case there should be
comments explaining why this strategy was chosen.

The use of op_mergejoinable() seems pretty random to me. Why should we
care about that? If somebody writes a<1 or a<2 or a<3 or a<4, you can
transform that to a<any(array[1,2,3,4]) if you want. It might not be a
good idea, but I think it's a legal transformation. The reader
shouldn't be left to guess whether a rule like this was made for
reasons of correctness or for reasons of efficiency or something else.
Looking further, I see that the reason for this is likely that the
operator for the transformation result is constructing using
list_make1(makeString((char *) "=")), but trying to choose an operator
based on the operator name is, I think, pretty clearly unacceptable.
Tom has fired more than one hacker out of an airlock for such
transgressions, and this violation seems less principled than some.
The = operator that got chosen could be entirely unrelated to any
operator in the original, untransformed query. It could be part of no
operator class that was involved in the original query, in a different
schema than the operator in the original query, and owned by a
different user than the one who owned any operator referenced by the
original query. I suspect that's not only incorrect but an exploitable
security vulnerability.

I am extremely dubious about the use of select_common_type() here. Why
not do this only when the types already match exactly? Maybe the
concern is unknown literals, but perhaps that should be handled in
some other way. If you do this kind of thing, you need to justify why
it can't fail or produce wrong answers.

Honestly, it seems very hard to avoid the conclusion that this
transformation is being done at too early a stage. Parse analysis is
not the time to try to do query optimization. I can't really believe
that there's a way to produce a committable patch along these lines.
Ideally, a transformation like this should be done after we know what
plan shape we're using (or considering using), so that we can make
cost-based decisions about whether to transform or not. But at the
very least it should happen somewhere in the planner. There's really
no justification for parse analysis rewriting the SQL that the user
entered.

--
Robert Haas
EDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com

On Mon, Nov 27, 2023 at 1:04 PM Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com> wrote:
> The use of op_mergejoinable() seems pretty random to me. Why should we
> care about that? If somebody writes a<1 or a<2 or a<3 or a<4, you can
> transform that to a<any(array[1,2,3,4]) if you want. It might not be a
> good idea, but I think it's a legal transformation.

That kind of transformation is likely to be a very good idea, because
nbtree's _bt_preprocess_array_keys() function knows how to perform
preprocessing that makes the final index qual "a < 1". Obviously that
could be far more efficient.

Further suppose you have a machine generated query  "a<1 or a<2 or a<3
or a<4 AND a = 2" -- same as before, except that I added "AND a = 2"
to the end. Now _bt_preprocess_array_keys() will be able to do the
aforementioned inequality preprocessing, just as before. But this time
_bt_preprocess_keys() (a different function with a similar name) can
see that the quals are contradictory. That makes the entire index scan
end, before it ever really began.

Obviously, this is an example of a more general principle: a great
deal of the benefit of these transformations is indirect, in the sense
that they come from enabling further transformations/optimizations,
that apply in the context of some particular query. So you have to
think holistically.

It's perhaps a little unfortunate that all of this nbtree
preprocessing stuff is totally opaque to the planner. Tom has
expressed concerns about that in the past, FWIW:

https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/2587523.1647982549@sss.pgh.pa.us
(see the final paragraph for the reference)

There might be some bigger picture to doing all of these
transformations, in a way that maximizes opportunities to apply
further transformations/optimizations. You know much more about the
optimizer than I do, so maybe this is already very obvious. Just
pointing it out.

> Honestly, it seems very hard to avoid the conclusion that this
> transformation is being done at too early a stage. Parse analysis is
> not the time to try to do query optimization. I can't really believe
> that there's a way to produce a committable patch along these lines.
> Ideally, a transformation like this should be done after we know what
> plan shape we're using (or considering using), so that we can make
> cost-based decisions about whether to transform or not. But at the
> very least it should happen somewhere in the planner. There's really
> no justification for parse analysis rewriting the SQL that the user
> entered.

I am sure that there is a great deal of truth to this. The general
conclusion about parse analysis being the wrong place for this seems
very hard to argue with. But I'm much less sure that there needs to be
a conventional cost model.

The planner's cost model is supposed to have some basis in physical
runtime costs, which is not the case for any of these transformations.
Not in any general sense; they're just transformations that enable
finding a cheaper way to execute the query. While they have to pay for
themselves, in some sense, I think that that's purely a matter of
managing the added planner cycles. In principle they shouldn't have
any direct impact on the physical costs incurred by physical
operators. No?

As I keep pointing out, there is a sound theoretical basis to the idea
of normalizing to conjunctive normal form as its own standard step in
query processing. To some extent we do this already, but it's all
rather ad-hoc. Even if (say) the nbtree preprocessing transformations
that I described were something that the planner already knew about
directly, they still wouldn't really need to be costed. They're pretty
much strictly better at runtime (at most you only have to worry about
the fixed cost of determining if they apply at all).

--
Peter Geoghegan

On Mon, Nov 27, 2023 at 5:16 PM Peter Geoghegan <pg@bowt.ie> wrote:
> [ various observations ]

This all seems to make sense but I don't have anything particular to
say about it.

> I am sure that there is a great deal of truth to this. The general
> conclusion about parse analysis being the wrong place for this seems
> very hard to argue with. But I'm much less sure that there needs to be
> a conventional cost model.

I'm not sure about that part, either. The big reason we shouldn't do
this in parse analysis is that parse analysis is supposed to produce
an internal representation which is basically just a direct
translation of what the user entered. The representation should be
able to be deparsed to produce more or less what the user entered
without significant transformations. References to objects like tables
and operators do get resolved to OIDs at this stage, so deparsing
results will vary if objects are renamed or the search_path changes
and more or less schema-qualification is required or things like that,
but the output of parse analysis is supposed to preserve the meaning
of the query as entered by the user. The right place to do
optimization is in the optimizer.

But where in the optimizer to do it is an open question in my mind.

Previous discussion suggests to me that we might not really have
enough information at the beginning, because it seems like the right
thing to do depends on which plan we ultimately choose to use, which
gets to what you say here:

> The planner's cost model is supposed to have some basis in physical
> runtime costs, which is not the case for any of these transformations.
> Not in any general sense; they're just transformations that enable
> finding a cheaper way to execute the query. While they have to pay for
> themselves, in some sense, I think that that's purely a matter of
> managing the added planner cycles. In principle they shouldn't have
> any direct impact on the physical costs incurred by physical
> operators. No?

Right. It's just that, as a practical matter, some of the operators
deal with one form better than the other. So if we waited until we
knew which operator we were using to decide on which form to pick,
that would let us be smart.

> As I keep pointing out, there is a sound theoretical basis to the idea
> of normalizing to conjunctive normal form as its own standard step in
> query processing. To some extent we do this already, but it's all
> rather ad-hoc. Even if (say) the nbtree preprocessing transformations
> that I described were something that the planner already knew about
> directly, they still wouldn't really need to be costed. They're pretty
> much strictly better at runtime (at most you only have to worry about
> the fixed cost of determining if they apply at all).

It's just a matter of figuring out where we can put the logic and have
the result make sense. We'd like to put it someplace where it's not
too expensive and gets the right answer.

--
Robert Haas
EDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com

On Mon, Nov 27, 2023 at 4:07 PM Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com> wrote:
> > I am sure that there is a great deal of truth to this. The general
> > conclusion about parse analysis being the wrong place for this seems
> > very hard to argue with. But I'm much less sure that there needs to be
> > a conventional cost model.
>
> I'm not sure about that part, either. The big reason we shouldn't do
> this in parse analysis is that parse analysis is supposed to produce
> an internal representation which is basically just a direct
> translation of what the user entered. The representation should be
> able to be deparsed to produce more or less what the user entered
> without significant transformations. References to objects like tables
> and operators do get resolved to OIDs at this stage, so deparsing
> results will vary if objects are renamed or the search_path changes
> and more or less schema-qualification is required or things like that,
> but the output of parse analysis is supposed to preserve the meaning
> of the query as entered by the user.

One of the reasons why we shouldn't do this during parse analysis is
because query rewriting might matter. But that doesn't mean that the
transformation/normalization process must fundamentally be the
responsibility of the optimizer, through process of elimination.

Maybe it should be the responsibility of some other phase of query
processing, invented solely to make life easier for the optimizer, but
not formally part of query planning per se.

> The right place to do
> optimization is in the optimizer.

Then why doesn't the optimizer do query rewriting? Isn't that also a
kind of optimization, at least in part?

> > The planner's cost model is supposed to have some basis in physical
> > runtime costs, which is not the case for any of these transformations.
> > Not in any general sense; they're just transformations that enable
> > finding a cheaper way to execute the query. While they have to pay for
> > themselves, in some sense, I think that that's purely a matter of
> > managing the added planner cycles. In principle they shouldn't have
> > any direct impact on the physical costs incurred by physical
> > operators. No?
>
> Right. It's just that, as a practical matter, some of the operators
> deal with one form better than the other. So if we waited until we
> knew which operator we were using to decide on which form to pick,
> that would let us be smart.

ISTM that the real problem is that this is true in the first place. If
the optimizer had only one representation for any two semantically
equivalent spellings of the same qual, then it would always use the
best available representation. That seems even smarter, because that
way the planner can be dumb and still look fairly smart at runtime.

I am trying to be pragmatic, too (at least I think so). If having only
one representation turns out to be very hard, then maybe they weren't
ever really equivalent -- meaning it really is an optimization
problem, and the responsibility of the planner. It seems like it would
be more useful to spend time on making the world simpler for the
optimizer, rather than spending time on making the optimizer smarter.
Especially if we're talking about teaching the optimizer about what
are actually fairly accidental differences that come from
implementation details.

I understand that it'll never be black and white. There are practical
constraints on how far you go with this. We throw around terms like
"semantically equivalent" as if everybody agreed on precisely what
that means, which isn't really true (users complain when their view
definition has "<>" instead of "!="). Even still, I bet that we could
bring things far closer to this theoretical ideal, to good effect.

> > As I keep pointing out, there is a sound theoretical basis to the idea
> > of normalizing to conjunctive normal form as its own standard step in
> > query processing. To some extent we do this already, but it's all
> > rather ad-hoc. Even if (say) the nbtree preprocessing transformations
> > that I described were something that the planner already knew about
> > directly, they still wouldn't really need to be costed. They're pretty
> > much strictly better at runtime (at most you only have to worry about
> > the fixed cost of determining if they apply at all).
>
> It's just a matter of figuring out where we can put the logic and have
> the result make sense. We'd like to put it someplace where it's not
> too expensive and gets the right answer.

Agreed.


--
Peter Geoghegan

On 25.11.2023 19:13, Alexander Korotkov wrote:
> On Sat, Nov 25, 2023 at 1:10 PM Alena Rybakina
> <a.rybakina@postgrespro.ru> wrote:
>> On 25.11.2023 04:13, Alexander Korotkov wrote:
>>
>> It seems to me there is a confusion.  I didn't mean we need to move
>> conversion of OR-expressions to ANY into choose_bitmap_and() function
>> or anything like this.  My idea was to avoid degradation of plans,
>> which I've seen in [1].  Current code for generation of bitmap paths
>> considers the possibility to split OR-expressions into distinct bitmap
>> index scans.  But it doesn't consider this possibility for
>> ANY-expressions.  So, my idea was to enhance our bitmap scan
>> generation to consider split values of ANY-expressions into distinct
>> bitmap index scans.  So, in the example [1] and similar queries
>> conversion of OR-expressions to ANY wouldn't affect the generation of
>> bitmap paths.
>>
>> Thanks for the explanation, yes, I did not understand the idea correctly at first. I will try to implement something
similar.
> Alena, great, thank you.  I'm looking forward to the updated patch.
>
I wrote the patch (any_to_or.diff.txt), although it is still under 
development (not all regression tests have been successful so far), it 
is already clear that for a query where a bad plan was chosen before, it 
is now choosing a more optimal query plan.

postgres=# set enable_or_transformation =on;
SET
postgres=# explain select * from test where (x = 1 or x = 2) and y = 100;
                                                   QUERY PLAN
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
  Bitmap Heap Scan on test  (cost=8.60..12.62 rows=1 width=12)
    Recheck Cond: (((y = '100'::double precision) AND (x = 1)) OR ((y = 
'100'::double precision) AND (x = 2)))
    ->  BitmapOr  (cost=8.60..8.60 rows=1 width=0)
          ->  Bitmap Index Scan on test_x_1_y  (cost=0.00..4.30 rows=1 
width=0)
                Index Cond: (y = '100'::double precision)
          ->  Bitmap Index Scan on test_x_2_y  (cost=0.00..4.30 rows=1 
width=0)
                Index Cond: (y = '100'::double precision)
(7 rows)

While I'm thinking how to combine it now.

BTW, while I was figuring out how create_index_paths works and creating 
bitmapscan indexes, I think I found a bug with unallocated memory (fix 
patch is bugfix.diff.txt). Without a fix here, it falls into the crust 
at the stage of assigning a value to any of the variables, specifically, 
skip_lower_stop and skip_nonnative_saop. I discovered it when I forced 
to form a bitmapindex plan for ANY (any_to_or.diff.txt). I'm causing a 
problem with my OR->ANY conversion patch.

-- 
Regards,
Alena Rybakina
Postgres Professional

On Mon, Nov 27, 2023 at 5:07 PM Peter Geoghegan <pg@bowt.ie> wrote:
> One of the reasons why we shouldn't do this during parse analysis is
> because query rewriting might matter. But that doesn't mean that the
> transformation/normalization process must fundamentally be the
> responsibility of the optimizer, through process of elimination.
>
> Maybe it should be the responsibility of some other phase of query
> processing, invented solely to make life easier for the optimizer, but
> not formally part of query planning per se.

Support for SEARCH and CYCLE clauses for recursive CTEs (added by
commit 3696a600e2) works by literally rewriting a parse node into a
form involving RowExpr and ScalarArrayOpExpr during rewriting. See
rewriteSearchAndCycle(). These implementation details are even
mentioned in user-facing docs.

Separately, the planner has long relied on certain generic
normalization steps from rewriteHandler.c. For example, it reorders
the targetlist from INSERT and UPDATE statements into what it knows to
be standard order within the planner, for the planner's convenience.

I'm not suggesting that these are any kind of precedent to follow now.
Just that they hint that rewriting/transformation prior to query
planning proper could be the right general approach. AFAICT that
really is what is needed. That, plus the work of fixing any
undesirable/unintended side effects that the transformations lead to,
which might be a difficult task in its own right (it likely requires
work in the planner).

--
Peter Geoghegan

On 28/11/2023 04:03, Robert Haas wrote:
> On Mon, Nov 27, 2023 at 3:02 AM Andrei Lepikhov
> <a.lepikhov@postgrespro.ru> wrote:
>> On 25/11/2023 08:23, Alexander Korotkov wrote:
>>> I think patch certainly gets better in this aspect.  One thing I can't
>>> understand is why do we use home-grown code for resolving
>>> hash-collisions.  You can just define custom hash and match functions
>>> in HASHCTL.  Even if we need to avoid repeated JumbleExpr calls, we
>>> still can save pre-calculated hash value into hash entry and use
>>> custom hash and match.  This doesn't imply us to write our own
>>> collision-resolving code.
>>
>> Thanks, it was an insightful suggestion.
>> I implemented it, and the code has become shorter (see attachment).
> 
> Neither the code comments nor the commit message really explain the
> design idea here. That's unfortunate, principally because it makes
> review difficult.

Yeah, it is still an issue. We will think about how to improve this; any 
suggestions are welcome.

> I'm very skeptical about the idea of using JumbleExpr for any part of
> this. It seems fairly expensive, and it might produce false matches.
> If expensive is OK, then why not just use equal()? If it's not, then
> this probably isn't really OK either. But in any case there should be
> comments explaining why this strategy was chosen.

We used the equal() routine without hashing in earlier versions. Hashing 
resolves issues with many different OR clauses. Is it expensive? Maybe, 
but we assume this transformation should be applied to simple enough 
expressions.

> The use of op_mergejoinable() seems pretty random to me. Why should we
> care about that? If somebody writes a<1 or a<2 or a<3 or a<4, you can
> transform that to a<any(array[1,2,3,4]) if you want. It might not be a
> good idea, but I think it's a legal transformation.

You are right. The only reason was to obtain a working patch to 
benchmark and look for corner cases. We would rewrite that place but 
still live with the equivalence operator.

> The reader shouldn't be left to guess whether a rule like this was made for
> reasons of correctness or for reasons of efficiency or something else.
> Looking further, I see that the reason for this is likely that the
> operator for the transformation result is constructing using
> list_make1(makeString((char *) "=")), but trying to choose an operator
> based on the operator name is, I think, pretty clearly unacceptable.

Yes, it was a big mistake. It is fixed in the new version (I guess).

> I am extremely dubious about the use of select_common_type() here. Why
> not do this only when the types already match exactly? Maybe the
> concern is unknown literals, but perhaps that should be handled in
> some other way. If you do this kind of thing, you need to justify why
> it can't fail or produce wrong answers.

Perhaps. We implemented your approach in the next version. At least we 
could see consequences.

> Honestly, it seems very hard to avoid the conclusion that this
> transformation is being done at too early a stage. Parse analysis is
> not the time to try to do query optimization. I can't really believe
> that there's a way to produce a committable patch along these lines.
> Ideally, a transformation like this should be done after we know what
> plan shape we're using (or considering using), so that we can make
> cost-based decisions about whether to transform or not. But at the
> very least it should happen somewhere in the planner. There's really
> no justification for parse analysis rewriting the SQL that the user
> entered.

Here, we assume that array operation is generally better than many ORs.
As a result, it should be more effective to make OR->ANY transformation 
in the parser (it is a relatively lightweight operation here) and, as a 
second phase, decompose that in the optimizer.
We implemented earlier prototypes in different places of the optimizer, 
and I'm convinced that only this approach resolves the issues we found.
Does this approach look weird? Maybe. We can debate it in this thread.

-- 
regards,
Andrei Lepikhov
Postgres Professional

On Mon, Nov 27, 2023 at 8:08 PM Peter Geoghegan <pg@bowt.ie> wrote:
> Maybe it should be the responsibility of some other phase of query
> processing, invented solely to make life easier for the optimizer, but
> not formally part of query planning per se.

I don't really see why that would be useful. Adding more stages to the
query pipeline adds cognitive burden for which there must be some
corresponding benefit. Even if this happened very early in query
planning as a completely separate pass over the query tree, that would
minimize the need for code changes outside the optimizer to need to
care about it. But I suspect that this shouldn't happen very early in
query planning as a completely separate pass, but someplace later
where it can be done together with other useful optimizations (e.g.
eval_const_expressions, or even path construction).

> > The right place to do
> > optimization is in the optimizer.
>
> Then why doesn't the optimizer do query rewriting? Isn't that also a
> kind of optimization, at least in part?

I mean, I think rewriting mostly means applying rules.

> ISTM that the real problem is that this is true in the first place. If
> the optimizer had only one representation for any two semantically
> equivalent spellings of the same qual, then it would always use the
> best available representation. That seems even smarter, because that
> way the planner can be dumb and still look fairly smart at runtime.

Sure, well, that's another way of attacking the problem, but the
in-array representation is more convenient to loop over than the
or-clause representation, so if you get to a point where looping over
all the values is a thing you want to do, you're going to want
something that looks like that. If I just care about the fact that the
values I'm looking for are 3, 4, and 6, I want someone to hand me 3,
4, and 6, not x = 3, x = 4, and x = 6, and then I have to skip over
the x = part each time.

--
Robert Haas
EDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com

Hi!

>
>> Honestly, it seems very hard to avoid the conclusion that this
>> transformation is being done at too early a stage. Parse analysis is
>> not the time to try to do query optimization. I can't really believe
>> that there's a way to produce a committable patch along these lines.
>> Ideally, a transformation like this should be done after we know what
>> plan shape we're using (or considering using), so that we can make
>> cost-based decisions about whether to transform or not. But at the
>> very least it should happen somewhere in the planner. There's really
>> no justification for parse analysis rewriting the SQL that the user
>> entered.
>
> Here, we assume that array operation is generally better than many ORs.
> As a result, it should be more effective to make OR->ANY 
> transformation in the parser (it is a relatively lightweight operation 
> here) and, as a second phase, decompose that in the optimizer.
> We implemented earlier prototypes in different places of the 
> optimizer, and I'm convinced that only this approach resolves the 
> issues we found.
> Does this approach look weird? Maybe. We can debate it in this thread.

I think this is incorrect, and the example of A. Korotkov confirms this. 
If we perform the conversion at the parsing stage, we will skip the more 
important conversion using OR expressions. I'll show you in the example 
below.

First of all, I will describe my idea to combine two approaches to 
obtaining plans with OR to ANY transformation and ANY to OR 
transformation. I think they are both good, and we can't work with just 
one of them, we should consider both the option of OR expressions, and 
with ANY.

I did this by creating a RelOptInfo with which has references from the 
original RelOptInfo, for which conversion is possible either from 
ANY->OR, or vice versa. After obtaining the necessary transformation, I 
started the procedure for obtaining the seq and index paths for both 
relations and then calculated their cost. The relation with the lowest 
cost is considered the best.

I'm not sure if this is the best approach, but it's less complicated.

I noticed that I got a lower cost for not the best plan, but I think 
this corresponds to another topic related to the wrong estimate calculation.

1. The first patch is a mixture of the original patch (when we perform 
the conversion of OR to ANY at the parsing stage), and when we perform 
the conversion at the index creation stage with the conversion to an OR 
expression. We can see that the query proposed by A.Korotkov did not 
have the best plan with ANY expression at all, and even despite 
receiving a query with OR expressions, we cannot get anything better 
than SeqScan, due to the lack of effective logical transformations that 
would have been performed if we had left the OR expressions.

So, I got query plans using enable_or_transformation if it is enabled:

postgres=# create table test as (select (random()*10)::int x, 
(random()*1000) y
from generate_series(1,1000000) i);
create index test_x_1_y on test (y) where x = 1;
create index test_x_2_y on test (y) where x = 2;
vacuum analyze test;
SELECT 1000000
CREATE INDEX
CREATE INDEX
VACUUM
postgres=# explain select * from test where (x = 1 or x = 2) and y = 100;
WARNING:  cost with original approach: - 20440.000000
WARNING:  cost with OR to ANY applied transfomation: - 15440.000000
                                 QUERY PLAN
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
  Gather  (cost=1000.00..12690.10 rows=1 width=12)
    Workers Planned: 2
    ->  Parallel Seq Scan on test  (cost=0.00..11690.00 rows=1 width=12)
          Filter: (((x = 1) OR (x = 2)) AND (y = '100'::double precision))
(4 rows)

and if it is off:

postgres=# set enable_or_transformation =off;
SET
postgres=# explain select * from test where (x = 1 or x = 2) and y = 100;
                                                   QUERY PLAN
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
  Bitmap Heap Scan on test  (cost=8.60..12.62 rows=1 width=12)
    Recheck Cond: (((y = '100'::double precision) AND (x = 1)) OR ((y = 
'100'::double precision) AND (x = 2)))
    ->  BitmapOr  (cost=8.60..8.60 rows=1 width=0)
          ->  Bitmap Index Scan on test_x_1_y  (cost=0.00..4.30 rows=1 
width=0)
                Index Cond: (y = '100'::double precision)
          ->  Bitmap Index Scan on test_x_2_y  (cost=0.00..4.30 rows=1 
width=0)
                Index Cond: (y = '100'::double precision)
(7 rows)

2. The second patch is my patch version when I moved the OR 
transformation in the s index formation stage:

So, I got the best query plan despite the possible OR to ANY transformation:

postgres=# create table test as (select (random()*10)::int x, 
(random()*1000) y
from generate_series(1,1000000) i);
create index test_x_1_y on test (y) where x = 1;
create index test_x_2_y on test (y) where x = 2;
vacuum analyze test;
SELECT 1000000
CREATE INDEX
CREATE INDEX
VACUUM
postgres=# explain select * from test where (x = 1 or x = 2) and y = 100;
WARNING:  cost with original approach: - 12.618000
WARNING:  cost with OR to ANY applied transfomation: - 15440.000000
                                                   QUERY PLAN
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
  Bitmap Heap Scan on test  (cost=8.60..12.62 rows=1 width=12)
    Recheck Cond: (((y = '100'::double precision) AND (x = 1)) OR ((y = 
'100'::double precision) AND (x = 2)))
    ->  BitmapOr  (cost=8.60..8.60 rows=1 width=0)
          ->  Bitmap Index Scan on test_x_1_y  (cost=0.00..4.30 rows=1 
width=0)
                Index Cond: (y = '100'::double precision)
          ->  Bitmap Index Scan on test_x_2_y  (cost=0.00..4.30 rows=1 
width=0)
                Index Cond: (y = '100'::double precision)
(7 rows)



-- 
Regards,
Alena Rybakina
Postgres Professional

Sorry, I forgot to apply my patches. For the first experiment was 
0001-OR-to-ANY-in-parser-and-ANY-to-OR-in-index.diff and for the second 
experiment was 0002-OR-to-ANY-in-index.diff.

On 30.11.2023 11:00, Alena Rybakina wrote:
> Hi!
>
>>
>>> Honestly, it seems very hard to avoid the conclusion that this
>>> transformation is being done at too early a stage. Parse analysis is
>>> not the time to try to do query optimization. I can't really believe
>>> that there's a way to produce a committable patch along these lines.
>>> Ideally, a transformation like this should be done after we know what
>>> plan shape we're using (or considering using), so that we can make
>>> cost-based decisions about whether to transform or not. But at the
>>> very least it should happen somewhere in the planner. There's really
>>> no justification for parse analysis rewriting the SQL that the user
>>> entered.
>>
>> Here, we assume that array operation is generally better than many ORs.
>> As a result, it should be more effective to make OR->ANY 
>> transformation in the parser (it is a relatively lightweight 
>> operation here) and, as a second phase, decompose that in the optimizer.
>> We implemented earlier prototypes in different places of the 
>> optimizer, and I'm convinced that only this approach resolves the 
>> issues we found.
>> Does this approach look weird? Maybe. We can debate it in this thread.
>
> I think this is incorrect, and the example of A. Korotkov confirms 
> this. If we perform the conversion at the parsing stage, we will skip 
> the more important conversion using OR expressions. I'll show you in 
> the example below.
>
> First of all, I will describe my idea to combine two approaches to 
> obtaining plans with OR to ANY transformation and ANY to OR 
> transformation. I think they are both good, and we can't work with 
> just one of them, we should consider both the option of OR 
> expressions, and with ANY.
>
> I did this by creating a RelOptInfo with which has references from the 
> original RelOptInfo, for which conversion is possible either from 
> ANY->OR, or vice versa. After obtaining the necessary transformation, 
> I started the procedure for obtaining the seq and index paths for both 
> relations and then calculated their cost. The relation with the lowest 
> cost is considered the best.
>
> I'm not sure if this is the best approach, but it's less complicated.
>
> I noticed that I got a lower cost for not the best plan, but I think 
> this corresponds to another topic related to the wrong estimate 
> calculation.
>
> 1. The first patch is a mixture of the original patch (when we perform 
> the conversion of OR to ANY at the parsing stage), and when we perform 
> the conversion at the index creation stage with the conversion to an 
> OR expression. We can see that the query proposed by A.Korotkov did 
> not have the best plan with ANY expression at all, and even despite 
> receiving a query with OR expressions, we cannot get anything better 
> than SeqScan, due to the lack of effective logical transformations 
> that would have been performed if we had left the OR expressions.
>
> So, I got query plans using enable_or_transformation if it is enabled:
>
> postgres=# create table test as (select (random()*10)::int x, 
> (random()*1000) y
> from generate_series(1,1000000) i);
> create index test_x_1_y on test (y) where x = 1;
> create index test_x_2_y on test (y) where x = 2;
> vacuum analyze test;
> SELECT 1000000
> CREATE INDEX
> CREATE INDEX
> VACUUM
> postgres=# explain select * from test where (x = 1 or x = 2) and y = 100;
> WARNING:  cost with original approach: - 20440.000000
> WARNING:  cost with OR to ANY applied transfomation: - 15440.000000
>                                 QUERY PLAN
> -------------------------------------------------------------------------- 
>
>  Gather  (cost=1000.00..12690.10 rows=1 width=12)
>    Workers Planned: 2
>    ->  Parallel Seq Scan on test  (cost=0.00..11690.00 rows=1 width=12)
>          Filter: (((x = 1) OR (x = 2)) AND (y = '100'::double precision))
> (4 rows)
>
> and if it is off:
>
> postgres=# set enable_or_transformation =off;
> SET
> postgres=# explain select * from test where (x = 1 or x = 2) and y = 100;
>                                                   QUERY PLAN
> -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 
>
>  Bitmap Heap Scan on test  (cost=8.60..12.62 rows=1 width=12)
>    Recheck Cond: (((y = '100'::double precision) AND (x = 1)) OR ((y = 
> '100'::double precision) AND (x = 2)))
>    ->  BitmapOr  (cost=8.60..8.60 rows=1 width=0)
>          ->  Bitmap Index Scan on test_x_1_y  (cost=0.00..4.30 rows=1 
> width=0)
>                Index Cond: (y = '100'::double precision)
>          ->  Bitmap Index Scan on test_x_2_y  (cost=0.00..4.30 rows=1 
> width=0)
>                Index Cond: (y = '100'::double precision)
> (7 rows)
>
> 2. The second patch is my patch version when I moved the OR 
> transformation in the s index formation stage:
>
> So, I got the best query plan despite the possible OR to ANY 
> transformation:
>
> postgres=# create table test as (select (random()*10)::int x, 
> (random()*1000) y
> from generate_series(1,1000000) i);
> create index test_x_1_y on test (y) where x = 1;
> create index test_x_2_y on test (y) where x = 2;
> vacuum analyze test;
> SELECT 1000000
> CREATE INDEX
> CREATE INDEX
> VACUUM
> postgres=# explain select * from test where (x = 1 or x = 2) and y = 100;
> WARNING:  cost with original approach: - 12.618000
> WARNING:  cost with OR to ANY applied transfomation: - 15440.000000
>                                                   QUERY PLAN
> -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 
>
>  Bitmap Heap Scan on test  (cost=8.60..12.62 rows=1 width=12)
>    Recheck Cond: (((y = '100'::double precision) AND (x = 1)) OR ((y = 
> '100'::double precision) AND (x = 2)))
>    ->  BitmapOr  (cost=8.60..8.60 rows=1 width=0)
>          ->  Bitmap Index Scan on test_x_1_y  (cost=0.00..4.30 rows=1 
> width=0)
>                Index Cond: (y = '100'::double precision)
>          ->  Bitmap Index Scan on test_x_2_y  (cost=0.00..4.30 rows=1 
> width=0)
>                Index Cond: (y = '100'::double precision)
> (7 rows)
>
>
>
-- 
Regards,
Alena Rybakina
Postgres Professional

On 30/11/2023 15:00, Alena Rybakina wrote:
> 2. The second patch is my patch version when I moved the OR 
> transformation in the s index formation stage:
> 
> So, I got the best query plan despite the possible OR to ANY 
> transformation:

If the user uses a clause like "x IN (1,2) AND y=100", it will break 
your 'good' solution.
In my opinion, the general approach here is to stay with OR->ANY 
transformation at the parsing stage and invent one more way for picking 
an index by looking into the array and attempting to find a compound index.
Having a shorter list of expressions, where uniform ORs are grouped into 
arrays, the optimizer will do such work with less overhead.

-- 
regards,
Andrei Lepikhov
Postgres Professional

On 30.11.2023 11:30, Andrei Lepikhov wrote:
> On 30/11/2023 15:00, Alena Rybakina wrote:
>> 2. The second patch is my patch version when I moved the OR 
>> transformation in the s index formation stage:
>>
>> So, I got the best query plan despite the possible OR to ANY 
>> transformation:
>
> If the user uses a clause like "x IN (1,2) AND y=100", it will break 
> your 'good' solution.

No, unfortunately I still see the plan with Seq scan node:

postgres=# explain analyze select * from test where x in (1,2) and y = 100;

                                                      QUERY PLAN
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
  Gather  (cost=1000.00..12690.10 rows=1 width=12) (actual 
time=72.985..74.832 rows=0 loops=1)
    Workers Planned: 2
    Workers Launched: 2
    ->  Parallel Seq Scan on test  (cost=0.00..11690.00 rows=1 width=12) 
(actual time=68.573..68.573 rows=0 loops=3)
          Filter: ((x = ANY ('{1,2}'::integer[])) AND (y = '100'::double 
precision))
          Rows Removed by Filter: 333333
  Planning Time: 0.264 ms
  Execution Time: 74.887 ms

(8 rows)

> In my opinion, the general approach here is to stay with OR->ANY 
> transformation at the parsing stage and invent one more way for 
> picking an index by looking into the array and attempting to find a 
> compound index.
> Having a shorter list of expressions, where uniform ORs are grouped 
> into arrays, the optimizer will do such work with less overhead. 

Looking at the current index generation code, implementing this approach 
will require a lot of refactoring so that functions starting with 
get_indexes do not rely on the current baserestrictinfo, but use only 
the indexrestrictinfo, which is a copy of baserestrictinfo. And I think, 
potentially, there may be complexity also with the equivalences that we 
can get from OR expressions. All interesting transformations are 
available only for OR expressions, not for ANY, that is, it makes sense 
to try the last chance to find a suitable plan with the available OR 
expressions and if that plan turns out to be better, use it.


-- 
Regards,
Alena Rybakina
Postgres Professional

On 30.11.2023 11:00, Alena Rybakina wrote:
> Hi!
>
>>
>>> Honestly, it seems very hard to avoid the conclusion that this
>>> transformation is being done at too early a stage. Parse analysis is
>>> not the time to try to do query optimization. I can't really believe
>>> that there's a way to produce a committable patch along these lines.
>>> Ideally, a transformation like this should be done after we know what
>>> plan shape we're using (or considering using), so that we can make
>>> cost-based decisions about whether to transform or not. But at the
>>> very least it should happen somewhere in the planner. There's really
>>> no justification for parse analysis rewriting the SQL that the user
>>> entered.
>>
>> Here, we assume that array operation is generally better than many ORs.
>> As a result, it should be more effective to make OR->ANY 
>> transformation in the parser (it is a relatively lightweight 
>> operation here) and, as a second phase, decompose that in the optimizer.
>> We implemented earlier prototypes in different places of the 
>> optimizer, and I'm convinced that only this approach resolves the 
>> issues we found.
>> Does this approach look weird? Maybe. We can debate it in this thread.
>
> I think this is incorrect, and the example of A. Korotkov confirms 
> this. If we perform the conversion at the parsing stage, we will skip 
> the more important conversion using OR expressions. I'll show you in 
> the example below.
>
> First of all, I will describe my idea to combine two approaches to 
> obtaining plans with OR to ANY transformation and ANY to OR 
> transformation. I think they are both good, and we can't work with 
> just one of them, we should consider both the option of OR 
> expressions, and with ANY.
>

Just in case, I have attached a patch or->any transformation where this 
happens at the index creation stage.

I get diff file during make check, but judging by the changes, it shows 
that the transformation is going well. I also attached it.


-- 
Regards,
Alena Rybakina
Postgres Professional

Hi,

Here is the next version of the patch where, I think, all of Roberts's 
claims related to the code have been fixed.
For example, expression 'x < 1 OR x < 2' is transformed to
'x < ANY (1,2)'.

Here, we still need to deal with the architectural issues. I like the 
approach mentioned by Peter: try to transform the expression tree to 
some 'normal' form, which is more laconic and simple; delay the search 
for any optimization ways to the following stages.

Also, it doesn't pass pg_dump test. At first glance, it is a problem of 
regex expression, which should be corrected further.

-- 
regards,
Andrei Lepikhov
Postgres Professional

Here is fresh version with the pg_dump.pl regex fixed. Now it must pass 
buildfarm.

Under development:
1. Explanation of the general idea in comments (Robert's note)
2. Issue with hiding some optimizations (Alexander's note and example 
with overlapping clauses on two partial indexes)

-- 
regards,
Andrei Lepikhov
Postgres Professional

On Tue, 5 Dec 2023 at 16:25, Andrei Lepikhov <a.lepikhov@postgrespro.ru> wrote:
>
> Here is fresh version with the pg_dump.pl regex fixed. Now it must pass
> buildfarm.
>
> Under development:
> 1. Explanation of the general idea in comments (Robert's note)
> 2. Issue with hiding some optimizations (Alexander's note and example
> with overlapping clauses on two partial indexes)

CFBot shows that the patch does not apply anymore as in [1]:
=== Applying patches on top of PostgreSQL commit ID
64444ce071f6b04d3fc836f436fa08108a6d11e2 ===
=== applying patch ./v14-1-0001-Transform-OR-clause-to-ANY-expressions.patch
....
patching file src/test/regress/expected/sysviews.out
Hunk #1 succeeded at 124 (offset 1 line).
Hunk #2 FAILED at 134.
1 out of 2 hunks FAILED -- saving rejects to file
src/test/regress/expected/sysviews.out.rej

Please post an updated version for the same.

[1] - http://cfbot.cputube.org/patch_46_4450.log

Regards,
Vignesh

On Tue, Dec 5, 2023 at 6:55 PM Andrei Lepikhov
<a.lepikhov@postgrespro.ru> wrote:
>
> Here is fresh version with the pg_dump.pl regex fixed. Now it must pass
> buildfarm.

+JumbleState *
+JumbleExpr(Expr *expr, uint64 *queryId)
+{
+ JumbleState *jstate = NULL;
+
+ Assert(queryId != NULL);
+
+ jstate = (JumbleState *) palloc(sizeof(JumbleState));
+
+ /* Set up workspace for query jumbling */
+ jstate->jumble = (unsigned char *) palloc(JUMBLE_SIZE);
+ jstate->jumble_len = 0;
+ jstate->clocations_buf_size = 32;
+ jstate->clocations = (LocationLen *)
+ palloc(jstate->clocations_buf_size * sizeof(LocationLen));
+ jstate->clocations_count = 0;
+ jstate->highest_extern_param_id = 0;
+
+ /* Compute query ID */
+ _jumbleNode(jstate, (Node *) expr);
+ *queryId = DatumGetUInt64(hash_any_extended(jstate->jumble,
+ jstate->jumble_len,
+ 0));
+
+ if (*queryId == UINT64CONST(0))
+ *queryId = UINT64CONST(1);
+
+ return jstate;
+}

+/*
+ * Hash function that's compatible with guc_name_compare
+ */
+static uint32
+orclause_hash(const void *data, Size keysize)
+{
+ OrClauseGroupKey   *key = (OrClauseGroupKey *) data;
+ uint64 hash;
+
+ (void) JumbleExpr(key->expr, &hash);
+ hash += ((uint64) key->opno + (uint64) key->exprtype) % UINT64_MAX;
+ return hash;
+}

correct me if i am wrong:
in orclause_hash, you just want to return a uint32, then why does the
JumbleExpr function return struct JumbleState.
here JumbleExpr, we just simply hash part of a Query struct,
so JumbleExpr's queryId would be confused with JumbleQuery function's queryId.

not sure the purpose of the following:
+ if (*queryId == UINT64CONST(0))
+ *queryId = UINT64CONST(1);

even if  *queryId is 0
`hash += ((uint64) key->opno + (uint64) key->exprtype) % UINT64_MAX;`
will make the hash return non-zero?

+ MemSet(&info, 0, sizeof(info));
i am not sure this is necessary.

Some comments on OrClauseGroupEntry would be great.

seems there is no doc.

create or replace function retint(int) returns int as
$func$
begin return $1 + round(10 * random()); end
$func$ LANGUAGE plpgsql;

set enable_or_transformation to on;
EXPLAIN (COSTS OFF)
SELECT count(*) FROM tenk1
WHERE thousand = 42 AND (tenthous * retint(1) = NULL OR tenthous *
retint(1) = 3) OR thousand = 41;

returns:
                                                    QUERY PLAN
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 Aggregate
   ->  Seq Scan on tenk1
         Filter: (((thousand = 42) AND ((tenthous * retint(1)) = ANY
('{NULL,3}'::integer[]))) OR (thousand = 41))
(3 rows)

Based on the query plan, retint executed once, but here it should be
executed twice?
maybe we need to use contain_volatile_functions to check through the
other part of the operator expression.

+ if (IsA(leftop, Const))
+ {
+ opno = get_commutator(opno);
+
+ if (!OidIsValid(opno))
+ {
+ /* Commuter doesn't exist, we can't reverse the order */
+ or_list = lappend(or_list, orqual);
+ continue;
+ }
+
+ nconst_expr = get_rightop(orqual);
+ const_expr = get_leftop(orqual);
+ }
+ else if (IsA(rightop, Const))
+ {
+ const_expr = get_rightop(orqual);
+ nconst_expr = get_leftop(orqual);
+ }
+ else
+ {
+ or_list = lappend(or_list, orqual);
+ continue;
+ }
do we need to skip this transformation for the const type is anyarray?

+/*
+ * Hash function that's compatible with guc_name_compare
+ */
+static uint32
+orclause_hash(const void *data, Size keysize)
+{
+ OrClauseGroupKey   *key = (OrClauseGroupKey *) data;
+ uint64 hash;
+
+ (void) JumbleExpr(key->expr, &hash);
+ hash += ((uint64) key->opno + (uint64) key->exprtype) % UINT64_MAX;
+ return hash;
+}

looks strange. `hash` is uint64, but here you return uint32.

based on my understanding of
https://www.postgresql.org/docs/current/xoper-optimization.html#XOPER-COMMUTATOR
I think you need move commutator check right after the `if
(get_op_rettype(opno) != BOOLOID)` branch

+ opno = ((OpExpr *) orqual)->opno;
+ if (get_op_rettype(opno) != BOOLOID)
+ {
+ /* Only operator returning boolean suits OR -> ANY transformation */
+ or_list = lappend(or_list, orqual);
+ continue;
+ }

select  po.oprname,po.oprkind,po.oprcanhash,po.oprleft::regtype,po.oprright,po.oprresult,
po1.oprname
from    pg_operator po join pg_operator po1
on      po.oprcom = po1.oid
where   po.oprresult = 16;

I am wondering, are all these types as long as the return type is bool
suitable for this transformation?

On Wed, Jan 31, 2024 at 10:55 AM jian he <jian.universality@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> based on my understanding of
> https://www.postgresql.org/docs/current/xoper-optimization.html#XOPER-COMMUTATOR
> I think you need move commutator check right after the `if
> (get_op_rettype(opno) != BOOLOID)` branch
>
I was wrong about this part. sorry for the noise.


I have made some changes (attachment).
* if the operator expression left or right side type category is
{array | domain | composite}, then don't do the transformation.
(i am not 10% sure with composite)

* if the left side of the operator expression node contains volatile
functions, then don't do the transformation.

* some other minor  cosmetic changes.

On Wed, Jan 31, 2024 at 10:55 AM jian he <jian.universality@gmail.com> wrote:

based on my understanding of
https://www.postgresql.org/docs/current/xoper-optimization.html#XOPER-COMMUTATOR
I think you need move commutator check right after the `if
(get_op_rettype(opno) != BOOLOID)` branch

I was wrong about this part. sorry for the noise.


I have made some changes (attachment).
* if the operator expression left or right side type category is
{array | domain | composite}, then don't do the transformation.
(i am not 10% sure with composite)

To be honest, I'm not sure about this check, because we check the type of variable there:if (!IsA(orqual, OpExpr))
        {
            or_list = lappend(or_list, orqual);
            continue;
        }
And below:
if (IsA(leftop, Const))
        {
            opno = get_commutator(opno);

            if (!OidIsValid(opno))
            {
                /* Commuter doesn't exist, we can't reverse the order */
                or_list = lappend(or_list, orqual);
                continue;
            }

            nconst_expr = get_rightop(orqual);
            const_expr = get_leftop(orqual);
        }
        else if (IsA(rightop, Const))
        {
            const_expr = get_rightop(orqual);
            nconst_expr = get_leftop(orqual);
        }
        else
        {
            or_list = lappend(or_list, orqual);
            continue;
        }

Isn't that enough?

Besides, some of examples (with ARRAY) works fine:

postgres=# CREATE TABLE sal_emp (
    pay_by_quarter  integer[],
    pay_by_quater1 integer[]
);
CREATE TABLE
postgres=# INSERT INTO sal_emp
    VALUES (       
    '{10000, 10000, 10000, 10000}',
    '{1,2,3,4}');
INSERT 0 1
postgres=# select * from sal_emp where pay_by_quarter[1] = 10000 or pay_by_quarter[1]=2;
      pay_by_quarter       | pay_by_quater1
---------------------------+----------------
 {10000,10000,10000,10000} | {1,2,3,4}
(1 row)

postgres=# explain select * from sal_emp where pay_by_quarter[1] = 10000 or pay_by_quarter[1]=2;
                          QUERY PLAN                          
--------------------------------------------------------------
 Seq Scan on sal_emp  (cost=0.00..21.00 rows=9 width=64)
   Filter: (pay_by_quarter[1] = ANY ('{10000,2}'::integer[]))
(2 rows)

* if the left side of the operator expression node contains volatile
functions, then don't do the transformation.

I'm also not sure about the volatility check function, because we perform such a conversion at the parsing stage, and at this stage we don't have a RelOptInfo variable and especially a RestictInfo such as PathTarget.

Speaking of NextValueExpr, I couldn't find any examples where the current patch wouldn't work. I wrote one of them below:

postgres=# create table foo (f1 int, f2 int generated always as identity);
CREATE TABLE
postgres=# insert into foo values(1);
INSERT 0 1

postgres=# explain verbose update foo set f1 = 2 where f1=1 or f1=2 ;
                            QUERY PLAN                             
-------------------------------------------------------------------
 Update on public.foo  (cost=0.00..38.25 rows=0 width=0)
   ->  Seq Scan on public.foo  (cost=0.00..38.25 rows=23 width=10)
         Output: 2, ctid
         Filter: (foo.f1 = ANY ('{1,2}'::integer[]))
(4 rows)

Maybe I missed something. Do you have any examples?

* some other minor  cosmetic changes.

-- 
Regards,
Alena Rybakina
Postgres Professional: http://www.postgrespro.com
The Russian Postgres Company

On Wed, Jan 31, 2024 at 7:10 PM Alena Rybakina
<a.rybakina@postgrespro.ru> wrote:
>
> Hi, thank you for your review and interest in this subject.
>
> On 31.01.2024 13:15, jian he wrote:
>
> On Wed, Jan 31, 2024 at 10:55 AM jian he <jian.universality@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> based on my understanding of
> https://www.postgresql.org/docs/current/xoper-optimization.html#XOPER-COMMUTATOR
> I think you need move commutator check right after the `if
> (get_op_rettype(opno) != BOOLOID)` branch
>
> I was wrong about this part. sorry for the noise.
>
>
> I have made some changes (attachment).
> * if the operator expression left or right side type category is
> {array | domain | composite}, then don't do the transformation.
> (i am not 10% sure with composite)
>
> To be honest, I'm not sure about this check, because we check the type of variable there:
>
> if (!IsA(orqual, OpExpr))
>         {
>             or_list = lappend(or_list, orqual);
>             continue;
>         }
> And below:
> if (IsA(leftop, Const))
>         {
>             opno = get_commutator(opno);
>
>             if (!OidIsValid(opno))
>             {
>                 /* Commuter doesn't exist, we can't reverse the order */
>                 or_list = lappend(or_list, orqual);
>                 continue;
>             }
>
>             nconst_expr = get_rightop(orqual);
>             const_expr = get_leftop(orqual);
>         }
>         else if (IsA(rightop, Const))
>         {
>             const_expr = get_rightop(orqual);
>             nconst_expr = get_leftop(orqual);
>         }
>         else
>         {
>             or_list = lappend(or_list, orqual);
>             continue;
>         }
>
> Isn't that enough?

alter table tenk1 add column arr int[];
set enable_or_transformation to on;
EXPLAIN (COSTS OFF)
SELECT count(*) FROM tenk1
WHERE arr = '{1,2,3}' or arr = '{1,2}';

the above query will not do the OR transformation. because array type
doesn't have array type.
`
scalar_type = entry->key.exprtype;
if (scalar_type != RECORDOID && OidIsValid(scalar_type))
array_type = get_array_type(scalar_type);
else
array_type = InvalidOid;
`

If either side of the operator expression is array or array related type,
we can be sure it cannot do the transformation
(get_array_type will return InvalidOid for anyarray type).
we can check it earlier, so hash related code will not be invoked for
array related types.


> Besides, some of examples (with ARRAY) works fine:
>
> postgres=# CREATE TABLE sal_emp (
>     pay_by_quarter  integer[],
>     pay_by_quater1 integer[]
> );
> CREATE TABLE
> postgres=# INSERT INTO sal_emp
>     VALUES (
>     '{10000, 10000, 10000, 10000}',
>     '{1,2,3,4}');
> INSERT 0 1
> postgres=# select * from sal_emp where pay_by_quarter[1] = 10000 or pay_by_quarter[1]=2;
>       pay_by_quarter       | pay_by_quater1
> ---------------------------+----------------
>  {10000,10000,10000,10000} | {1,2,3,4}
> (1 row)
>
> postgres=# explain select * from sal_emp where pay_by_quarter[1] = 10000 or pay_by_quarter[1]=2;
>                           QUERY PLAN
> --------------------------------------------------------------
>  Seq Scan on sal_emp  (cost=0.00..21.00 rows=9 width=64)
>    Filter: (pay_by_quarter[1] = ANY ('{10000,2}'::integer[]))
> (2 rows)
>
> * if the left side of the operator expression node contains volatile
> functions, then don't do the transformation.
>
> I'm also not sure about the volatility check function, because we perform such a conversion at the parsing stage, and
atthis stage we don't have a RelOptInfo variable and especially a RestictInfo such as PathTarget. 
>
 see the example in here:
https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/CACJufxGXhJ823cdAdp2Ho7qC-HZ3_-dtdj-myaAi_u9RQLn45g%40mail.gmail.com

set enable_or_transformation to on;
create or replace function retint(int) returns int as
$func$
begin raise notice 'hello';
        return $1 + round(10 * random()); end
$func$ LANGUAGE plpgsql;

SELECT count(*) FROM tenk1 WHERE thousand = 42;
will return 10 rows.

SELECT count(*) FROM tenk1 WHERE thousand = 42 AND (retint(1) = 4 OR
retint(1) = 3);
this query I should return 20 notices 'hello', but now only 10.

EXPLAIN (COSTS OFF)
SELECT count(*) FROM tenk1
WHERE thousand = 42 AND (retint(1) = 4 OR  retint(1) = 3);
                                  QUERY PLAN
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 Aggregate
   ->  Seq Scan on tenk1
         Filter: ((thousand = 42) AND (retint(1) = ANY ('{4,3}'::integer[])))
(3 rows)

On Wed, Jan 31, 2024 at 7:10 PM Alena Rybakina
<a.rybakina@postgrespro.ru> wrote:

Hi, thank you for your review and interest in this subject.

On 31.01.2024 13:15, jian he wrote:

On Wed, Jan 31, 2024 at 10:55 AM jian he <jian.universality@gmail.com> wrote:

based on my understanding of
https://www.postgresql.org/docs/current/xoper-optimization.html#XOPER-COMMUTATOR
I think you need move commutator check right after the `if
(get_op_rettype(opno) != BOOLOID)` branch

I was wrong about this part. sorry for the noise.


I have made some changes (attachment).
* if the operator expression left or right side type category is
{array | domain | composite}, then don't do the transformation.
(i am not 10% sure with composite)

To be honest, I'm not sure about this check, because we check the type of variable there:

if (!IsA(orqual, OpExpr))        {            or_list = lappend(or_list, orqual);            continue;        }
And below:
if (IsA(leftop, Const))        {            opno = get_commutator(opno);
            if (!OidIsValid(opno))            {                /* Commuter doesn't exist, we can't reverse the order */                or_list = lappend(or_list, orqual);                continue;            }
            nconst_expr = get_rightop(orqual);            const_expr = get_leftop(orqual);        }        else if (IsA(rightop, Const))        {            const_expr = get_rightop(orqual);            nconst_expr = get_leftop(orqual);        }        else        {            or_list = lappend(or_list, orqual);            continue;        }

Isn't that enough?

alter table tenk1 add column arr int[];
set enable_or_transformation to on;
EXPLAIN (COSTS OFF)
SELECT count(*) FROM tenk1
WHERE arr = '{1,2,3}' or arr = '{1,2}';

the above query will not do the OR transformation. because array type
doesn't have array type.
`
scalar_type = entry->key.exprtype;
if (scalar_type != RECORDOID && OidIsValid(scalar_type))
array_type = get_array_type(scalar_type);
else
array_type = InvalidOid;
`

If either side of the operator expression is array or array related type,
we can be sure it cannot do the transformation
(get_array_type will return InvalidOid for anyarray type).
we can check it earlier, so hash related code will not be invoked for
array related types.

Besides, some of examples (with ARRAY) works fine:

postgres=# CREATE TABLE sal_emp (    pay_by_quarter  integer[],    pay_by_quater1 integer[]
);
CREATE TABLE
postgres=# INSERT INTO sal_emp    VALUES (    '{10000, 10000, 10000, 10000}',    '{1,2,3,4}');
INSERT 0 1
postgres=# select * from sal_emp where pay_by_quarter[1] = 10000 or pay_by_quarter[1]=2;      pay_by_quarter       | pay_by_quater1
---------------------------+---------------- {10000,10000,10000,10000} | {1,2,3,4}
(1 row)

postgres=# explain select * from sal_emp where pay_by_quarter[1] = 10000 or pay_by_quarter[1]=2;                          QUERY PLAN
-------------------------------------------------------------- Seq Scan on sal_emp  (cost=0.00..21.00 rows=9 width=64)   Filter: (pay_by_quarter[1] = ANY ('{10000,2}'::integer[]))
(2 rows)

* if the left side of the operator expression node contains volatile
functions, then don't do the transformation.

I'm also not sure about the volatility check function, because we perform such a conversion at the parsing stage, and at this stage we don't have a RelOptInfo variable and especially a RestictInfo such as PathTarget.

 see the example in here:
https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/CACJufxGXhJ823cdAdp2Ho7qC-HZ3_-dtdj-myaAi_u9RQLn45g%40mail.gmail.com

set enable_or_transformation to on;
create or replace function retint(int) returns int as
$func$
begin raise notice 'hello';        return $1 + round(10 * random()); end
$func$ LANGUAGE plpgsql;

SELECT count(*) FROM tenk1 WHERE thousand = 42;
will return 10 rows.

SELECT count(*) FROM tenk1 WHERE thousand = 42 AND (retint(1) = 4 OR
retint(1) = 3);
this query I should return 20 notices 'hello', but now only 10.

EXPLAIN (COSTS OFF)
SELECT count(*) FROM tenk1
WHERE thousand = 42 AND (retint(1) = 4 OR  retint(1) = 3);                                  QUERY PLAN
------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Aggregate   ->  Seq Scan on tenk1         Filter: ((thousand = 42) AND (retint(1) = ANY ('{4,3}'::integer[])))
(3 rows)

Agree.

I added your code to the patch.

-- 
Regards,
Alena Rybakina
Postgres Professional: http://www.postgrespro.com
The Russian Postgres Company

On 3/2/2024 02:06, Alena Rybakina wrote:
> On 01.02.2024 08:00, jian he wrote:
> I added your code to the patch.
Thanks Alena and Jian for the detailed scrutiny!

A couple of questions:
1. As I see, transformAExprIn uses the same logic as we invented but 
allows composite and domain types. Could you add a comment explaining 
why we forbid row types in general, in contrast to the transformAExprIn 
routine?
2. Could you provide the tests to check issues covered by the recent (in 
v.15) changes?

Patch 0001-* in the attachment incorporates changes induced by Jian's 
notes from [1].
Patch 0002-* contains a transformation of the SAOP clause, which allows 
the optimizer to utilize partial indexes if they cover all values in 
this array. Also, it is an answer to Alexander's note [2] on performance 
degradation. This first version may be a bit raw, but I need your 
opinion: Does it resolve the issue?

Skimming through the thread, I see that, in general, all issues have 
been covered for now. Only Robert's note on a lack of documentation is 
still needs to be resolved.

[1] 
https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/CACJufxGXhJ823cdAdp2Ho7qC-HZ3_-dtdj-myaAi_u9RQLn45g%40mail.gmail.com
[2] 
https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/CAPpHfduJtO0s9E%3DSHUTzrCD88BH0eik0UNog1_q3XBF2wLmH6g%40mail.gmail.com

-- 
regards,
Andrei Lepikhov
Postgres Professional

On Thu, Feb 8, 2024 at 1:34 PM Andrei Lepikhov
<a.lepikhov@postgrespro.ru> wrote:
>
> On 3/2/2024 02:06, Alena Rybakina wrote:
> > On 01.02.2024 08:00, jian he wrote:
> > I added your code to the patch.
> Thanks Alena and Jian for the detailed scrutiny!
>
> A couple of questions:
> 1. As I see, transformAExprIn uses the same logic as we invented but
> allows composite and domain types. Could you add a comment explaining
> why we forbid row types in general, in contrast to the transformAExprIn
> routine?
> 2. Could you provide the tests to check issues covered by the recent (in
> v.15) changes?
>
> Patch 0001-* in the attachment incorporates changes induced by Jian's
> notes from [1].
> Patch 0002-* contains a transformation of the SAOP clause, which allows
> the optimizer to utilize partial indexes if they cover all values in
> this array. Also, it is an answer to Alexander's note [2] on performance
> degradation. This first version may be a bit raw, but I need your
> opinion: Does it resolve the issue?
yes. It resolved the partial index performance degradation issue.
The v16, 0002 extra code overhead is limited.

Here is how I test it.
drop table if exists test;
create table test as (select (random()*100)::int x, (random()*1000) y
from generate_series(1,1000000) i);
create index test_x_1_y on test (y) where x = 1;
create index test_x_2_y on test (y) where x = 2;
create index test_x_3_y on test (y) where x = 3;
create index test_x_4_y on test (y) where x = 4;
create index test_x_5_y on test (y) where x = 5;
create index test_x_6_y on test (y) where x = 6;
create index test_x_7_y on test (y) where x = 7;
create index test_x_8_y on test (y) where x = 8;
create index test_x_9_y on test (y) where x = 9;
create index test_x_10_y on test (y) where x = 10;

set enable_or_transformation to on;
explain(analyze, costs off)
select * from test
where (x = 1 or x = 2 or x = 3 or x = 4 or x = 5 or x = 6 or x = 7 or
x = 8 or x = 9 or x = 10);

set enable_or_transformation to off;
explain(analyze, costs off)
select * from test
where (x = 1 or x = 2 or x = 3 or x = 4 or x = 5 or x = 6 or x = 7 or
x = 8 or x = 9 or x = 10);



FAILED: src/backend/postgres_lib.a.p/optimizer_path_indxpath.c.o
ccache cc -Isrc/backend/postgres_lib.a.p -Isrc/include
-I../../Desktop/pg_src/src8/postgres/src/include
-I/usr/include/libxml2 -fdiagnostics-color=always --coverage
-D_FILE_OFFSET_BITS=64 -Wall -Winvalid-pch -Werror -O0 -g
-fno-strict-aliasing -fwrapv -fexcess-precision=standard -D_GNU_SOURCE
-Wmissing-prototypes -Wpointer-arith -Werror=vla -Wendif-labels
-Wmissing-format-attribute -Wimplicit-fallthrough=3
-Wcast-function-type -Wshadow=compatible-local -Wformat-security
-Wdeclaration-after-statement -Wno-format-truncation
-Wno-stringop-truncation -Wunused-variable -Wuninitialized
-Werror=maybe-uninitialized -Wreturn-type
-DWRITE_READ_PARSE_PLAN_TREES -DCOPY_PARSE_PLAN_TREES
-DREALLOCATE_BITMAPSETS -DRAW_EXPRESSION_COVERAGE_TEST
-fno-omit-frame-pointer -fPIC -pthread -DBUILDING_DLL -MD -MQ
src/backend/postgres_lib.a.p/optimizer_path_indxpath.c.o -MF
src/backend/postgres_lib.a.p/optimizer_path_indxpath.c.o.d -o
src/backend/postgres_lib.a.p/optimizer_path_indxpath.c.o -c
../../Desktop/pg_src/src8/postgres/src/backend/optimizer/path/indxpath.c
../../Desktop/pg_src/src8/postgres/src/backend/optimizer/path/indxpath.c:
In function ‘build_paths_for_SAOP’:
../../Desktop/pg_src/src8/postgres/src/backend/optimizer/path/indxpath.c:1267:33:
error: declaration of ‘pd’ shadows a previous local
[-Werror=shadow=compatible-local]
 1267 |                 PredicatesData *pd = (PredicatesData *) lfirst(lc);
      |                                 ^~
../../Desktop/pg_src/src8/postgres/src/backend/optimizer/path/indxpath.c:1235:29:
note: shadowed declaration is here
 1235 |         PredicatesData     *pd;
      |                             ^~
cc1: all warnings being treated as errors
[32/126] Compiling C object src/backend/postgres_lib.a.p/utils_adt_ruleutils.c.o
ninja: build stopped: subcommand failed.

+ if (!predicate_implied_by(index->indpred, list_make1(rinfo1), true))
+ elog(ERROR, "Logical mistake in OR <-> ANY transformation code");
the error message seems not clear?
What is a "Logical mistake"?

static List *
build_paths_for_SAOP(PlannerInfo *root, RelOptInfo *rel, RestrictInfo *rinfo,
List *other_clauses)
I am not sure what's `other_clauses`, and `rinfo` refers to? adding
some comments would be great.

struct PredicatesData needs some comments, I think.

+bool
+saop_covered_by_predicates(ScalarArrayOpExpr *saop, List *predicate_lists)
+{
+ ListCell   *lc;
+ PredIterInfoData clause_info;
+ bool result = false;
+ bool isConstArray;
+
+ Assert(IsA(saop, ScalarArrayOpExpr));
is this Assert necessary?

For the function build_paths_for_SAOP, I think I understand the first
part of the code.
But I am not 100% sure of the second part of the `foreach(lc,
predicate_lists)` code.
more comments in `foreach(lc, predicate_lists)` would be helpful.

do you need to add `PredicatesData` to src/tools/pgindent/typedefs.list?

I also did some minor refactoring of generate_saop_pathlist.

type_is_rowtype does not check if the type is array type.
transformBoolExprOr the OR QUAL, the Const part cannot be an array.
simple example:
alter table tenk1 add column arr int[];
set enable_or_transformation to on;
EXPLAIN (COSTS OFF)
SELECT count(*) FROM tenk1
WHERE arr = '{1,2,3}' or arr = '{1,2}';

instead of let it go to `foreach (lc, entries)`,
we can reject the Const array at `foreach(lc, expr->args)`

also `foreach(lc, expr->args)` do we need to reject cases like
`contain_subplans((Node *) nconst_expr)`?
maybe let the nconst_expr be a Var node would be far more easier.

Thanks for the review!
It was the first version for discussion. Of course, refactoring and 
polishing cycles will be needed, even so we can discuss the general idea 
earlier.

On 10/2/2024 12:00, jian he wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 8, 2024 at 1:34 PM Andrei Lepikhov
>   1235 |         PredicatesData     *pd;
Thanks

> + if (!predicate_implied_by(index->indpred, list_make1(rinfo1), true))
> + elog(ERROR, "Logical mistake in OR <-> ANY transformation code");
> the error message seems not clear?
Yeah, have rewritten

> static List *
> build_paths_for_SAOP(PlannerInfo *root, RelOptInfo *rel, RestrictInfo *rinfo,
> List *other_clauses)
> I am not sure what's `other_clauses`, and `rinfo` refers to? adding
> some comments would be great.
> 
> struct PredicatesData needs some comments, I think.
Added, not so much though
> 
> +bool
> +saop_covered_by_predicates(ScalarArrayOpExpr *saop, List *predicate_lists)
> +{
> + ListCell   *lc;
> + PredIterInfoData clause_info;
> + bool result = false;
> + bool isConstArray;
> +
> + Assert(IsA(saop, ScalarArrayOpExpr));
> is this Assert necessary?
Not sure. Moved it into another routine.
> 
> For the function build_paths_for_SAOP, I think I understand the first
> part of the code.
> But I am not 100% sure of the second part of the `foreach(lc,
> predicate_lists)` code.
> more comments in `foreach(lc, predicate_lists)` would be helpful.
Done
> 
> do you need to add `PredicatesData` to src/tools/pgindent/typedefs.list?
Done
> 
> I also did some minor refactoring of generate_saop_pathlist.
Partially agree
> 
> instead of let it go to `foreach (lc, entries)`,
> we can reject the Const array at `foreach(lc, expr->args)`
Yeah, I just think we can go further and transform two const arrays into 
a new one if we have the same clause and operator. In that case, we 
should allow it to pass through this cycle down to the classification stage.
> 
> also `foreach(lc, expr->args)` do we need to reject cases like
> `contain_subplans((Node *) nconst_expr)`?
> maybe let the nconst_expr be a Var node would be far more easier.
It's contradictory. On the one hand, we simplify the comparison 
procedure and can avoid expr jumbling at all. On the other hand - we 
restrict the feature. IMO, it would be better to unite such clauses
complex_clause1 IN (..) OR complex_clause1 IN (..)
into
complex_clause1 IN (.., ..)
and don't do duplicated work computing complex clauses.
In the attachment - the next version of the second patch.

-- 
regards,
Andrei Lepikhov
Postgres Professional

Hi!

I can't unnderstand this part of code:

/* Time to generate index paths */

MemSet(&clauseset, 0, sizeof(clauseset));
match_clauses_to_index(root, list_make1(rinfo1), index, &clauseset);

As I understand it, match_clauses_to_index is necessary if you have a RestrictInfo (rinfo1) variable, so maybe we should run it after the make_restrictonfo procedure, otherwise calling it, I think, is useless.

-- 
Regards,
Alena Rybakina
Postgres Professional: http://www.postgrespro.com
The Russian Postgres Company

On 12/2/2024 15:55, Alena Rybakina wrote:
> Hi!
> 
> I can't unnderstand this part of code:
> 
> /* Time to generate index paths */
> 
> MemSet(&clauseset, 0, sizeof(clauseset));
> match_clauses_to_index(root, list_make1(rinfo1), index, &clauseset);
> 
> As I understand it, match_clauses_to_index is necessary if you have a 
> RestrictInfo (rinfo1) variable, so maybe we should run it after the 
> make_restrictonfo procedure, otherwise calling it, I think, is useless.
I think you must explain your note in more detail. Before this call, we 
already called make_restrictinfo() and built rinfo1, haven't we?

-- 
regards,
Andrei Lepikhov
Postgres Professional

On 12.02.2024 12:01, Andrei Lepikhov wrote:
> On 12/2/2024 15:55, Alena Rybakina wrote:
>> Hi!
>>
>> I can't unnderstand this part of code:
>>
>> /* Time to generate index paths */
>>
>> MemSet(&clauseset, 0, sizeof(clauseset));
>> match_clauses_to_index(root, list_make1(rinfo1), index, &clauseset);
>>
>> As I understand it, match_clauses_to_index is necessary if you have a 
>> RestrictInfo (rinfo1) variable, so maybe we should run it after the 
>> make_restrictonfo procedure, otherwise calling it, I think, is useless.
> I think you must explain your note in more detail. Before this call, 
> we already called make_restrictinfo() and built rinfo1, haven't we?
>
I got it, I think, I was confused by the “else“ block when we can 
process the index, otherwise we move on to the next element.

I think maybe “else“ block of creating restrictinfo with the indexpaths 
list creation should be moved to a separate function or just remove "else"?


I think we need to check that rinfo->clause is not empty, because if it 
is we can miss calling build_paths_for_OR function. We should add it there:

restriction_is_saop_clause(RestrictInfo *restrictinfo)
{
     if (IsA(restrictinfo->clause, ScalarArrayOpExpr))
...


By the way, I think we need to add a check that the clauseset is not 
empty (if (!clauseset.nonempty)) otherwise we could get an error. The 
same check I noticed in build_paths_for_OR function.

-- 
Regards,
Alena Rybakina
Postgres Professional: http://www.postgrespro.com
The Russian Postgres Company

On Thu, Feb 8, 2024 at 1:34 PM Andrei Lepikhov
<a.lepikhov@postgrespro.ru> wrote:
> A couple of questions:
> 1. As I see, transformAExprIn uses the same logic as we invented but
> allows composite and domain types. Could you add a comment explaining
> why we forbid row types in general, in contrast to the transformAExprIn
> routine?
> 2. Could you provide the tests to check issues covered by the recent (in
> v.15) changes?
>
> Patch 0001-* in the attachment incorporates changes induced by Jian's
> notes from [1].
> Patch 0002-* contains a transformation of the SAOP clause, which allows
> the optimizer to utilize partial indexes if they cover all values in
> this array. Also, it is an answer to Alexander's note [2] on performance
> degradation. This first version may be a bit raw, but I need your
> opinion: Does it resolve the issue?
>

+ newa = makeNode(ArrayExpr);
+ /* array_collid will be set by parse_collate.c */
+ newa->element_typeid = scalar_type;
+ newa->array_typeid = array_type;
+ newa->multidims = false;
+ newa->elements = aexprs;
+ newa->location = -1;

I am confused by the comments `array_collid will be set by
parse_collate.c`, can you further explain it?
if OR expression right arm is not plain Const, but with collation
specification, eg.
`where a  = 'a' collate "C" or a = 'b' collate "C";`

then the rightop is not Const, it will be CollateExpr, it will not be
used in transformation.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Maybe the previous thread mentioned it, but this thread is very long.
after apply
v16-0001-Transform-OR-clause-to-ANY-expressions.patch
and 0002-Teach-generate_bitmap_or_paths-to-build-BitmapOr-pat-20240212.patch
I found a performance degradation case:

drop table if exists test;
create table test as (select (random()*100)::int x, (random()*1000) y
from generate_series(1,1000000) i);
vacuum analyze test;

set enable_or_transformation to off;
explain(timing off, analyze, costs off)
select * from test where (x = 1 or x = 2 or x = 3 or x = 4 or x = 5 or
x = 6 or x = 7 or x = 8 or x = 9 ) \watch i=0.1 c=10
50.887 ms

set enable_or_transformation to on;
explain(timing off, analyze, costs off)
select * from test where (x = 1 or x = 2 or x = 3 or x = 4 or x = 5 or
x = 6 or x = 7 or x = 8 or x = 9 ) \watch i=0.1 c=10
92.001 ms

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
but for aggregate count(*), it indeed increased the performance:

set enable_or_transformation to off;
explain(timing off, analyze, costs off)
select count(*) from test where (x = 1 or x = 2 or x = 3 or x = 4 or x
= 5 or x = 6 or x = 7 or x = 8 or x = 9 ) \watch i=0.1 c=10
46.818 ms

set enable_or_transformation to on;
explain(timing off, analyze, costs off)
select count(*) from test where (x = 1 or x = 2 or x = 3 or x = 4 or x
= 5 or x = 6 or x = 7 or x = 8 or x = 9 ) \watch i=0.1 c=10
35.376 ms

The time is the last result of the 10 iterations.

On 13/2/2024 07:00, jian he wrote:
> + newa = makeNode(ArrayExpr);
> + /* array_collid will be set by parse_collate.c */
> + newa->element_typeid = scalar_type;
> + newa->array_typeid = array_type;
> + newa->multidims = false;
> + newa->elements = aexprs;
> + newa->location = -1;
> 
> I am confused by the comments `array_collid will be set by
> parse_collate.c`, can you further explain it?
I wonder if the second paragraph of comments on commit b310b6e will be 
enough to dive into details.

> if OR expression right arm is not plain Const, but with collation
> specification, eg.
> `where a  = 'a' collate "C" or a = 'b' collate "C";`
> 
> then the rightop is not Const, it will be CollateExpr, it will not be
> used in transformation.
Yes, it is done for simplicity right now. I'm not sure about corner 
cases of merging such expressions.

> 
> set enable_or_transformation to on;
> explain(timing off, analyze, costs off)
> select count(*) from test where (x = 1 or x = 2 or x = 3 or x = 4 or x
> = 5 or x = 6 or x = 7 or x = 8 or x = 9 ) \watch i=0.1 c=10
> 35.376 ms
> 
> The time is the last result of the 10 iterations.
The reason here - parallel workers.
If you see into the plan you will find parallel workers without 
optimization and absence of them in the case of optimization:

Gather  (cost=1000.00..28685.37 rows=87037 width=12)
    (actual rows=90363 loops=1)
    Workers Planned: 2
    Workers Launched: 2
    ->  Parallel Seq Scan on test
          Filter: ((x = 1) OR (x = 2) OR (x = 3) OR (x = 4) OR (x = 5) 
OR (x = 6) OR (x = 7) OR (x = 8) OR (x = 9))

Seq Scan on test  (cost=0.02..20440.02 rows=90600 width=12)
          (actual rows=90363 loops=1)
    Filter: (x = ANY ('{1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9}'::integer[]))

Having 90600 tuples returned we estimate it into 87000 (less precisely) 
without transformation and 90363 (more precisely) with the transformation.
But if you play with parallel_tuple_cost and parallel_setup_cost, you 
will end up having these parallel workers:

  Gather  (cost=0.12..11691.03 rows=90600 width=12)
     (actual rows=90363 loops=1)
    Workers Planned: 2
    Workers Launched: 2
    ->  Parallel Seq Scan on test
          Filter: (x = ANY ('{1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9}'::integer[]))
          Rows Removed by Filter: 303212

And some profit about 25%, on my laptop.
I'm not sure about the origins of such behavior, but it seems to be an 
issue of parallel workers, not this specific optimization.

-- 
regards,
Andrei Lepikhov
Postgres Professional

On 12/2/2024 17:51, Alena Rybakina wrote:
> On 12.02.2024 12:01, Andrei Lepikhov wrote:
>> On 12/2/2024 15:55, Alena Rybakina wrote:
>>> As I understand it, match_clauses_to_index is necessary if you have a 
>>> RestrictInfo (rinfo1) variable, so maybe we should run it after the 
>>> make_restrictonfo procedure, otherwise calling it, I think, is useless.
>> I think you must explain your note in more detail. Before this call, 
>> we already called make_restrictinfo() and built rinfo1, haven't we?
>>
> I got it, I think, I was confused by the “else“ block when we can 
> process the index, otherwise we move on to the next element.
> 
> I think maybe “else“ block of creating restrictinfo with the indexpaths 
> list creation should be moved to a separate function or just remove "else"?
IMO, it is a matter of taste. But if you are really confused, maybe it 
will make understanding for someone else simpler. So, changed.
> I think we need to check that rinfo->clause is not empty, because if it 
> is we can miss calling build_paths_for_OR function. We should add it there:
> 
> restriction_is_saop_clause(RestrictInfo *restrictinfo)
> {
>      if (IsA(restrictinfo->clause, ScalarArrayOpExpr))
I wonder if we should add here assertion, not NULL check. In what case 
we could get NULL clause here? But added for surety.

> By the way, I think we need to add a check that the clauseset is not 
> empty (if (!clauseset.nonempty)) otherwise we could get an error. The 
> same check I noticed in build_paths_for_OR function.
I don't. Feel free to provide counterexample.

-- 
regards,
Andrei Lepikhov
Postgres Professional

On 13/2/2024 17:03, Andrei Lepikhov wrote:
> On 13/2/2024 07:00, jian he wrote:
>> The time is the last result of the 10 iterations.
> I'm not sure about the origins of such behavior, but it seems to be an 
> issue of parallel workers, not this specific optimization.
Having written that, I'd got a backburner. And to close that issue, I 
explored get_restriction_qual_cost(). A close look shows us that "x IN 
(..)" cheaper than its equivalent "x=N1 OR ...". Just numbers:

ANY: startup_cost = 0.0225; total_cost = 0.005
OR: startup_cost==0; total_cost = 0.0225

Expression total_cost is calculated per tuple. In your example, we have 
many tuples, so the low cost of expression per tuple dominates over the 
significant startup cost.

According to the above, SAOP adds 6250 to the cost of SeqScan; OR - 
13541. So, the total cost of the query with SAOP is less than with OR, 
and the optimizer doesn't choose heavy parallel workers. And it is the 
answer.

So, this example is more about the subtle balance between 
parallel/sequential execution, which can vary from one platform to another.

-- 
regards,
Andrei Lepikhov
Postgres Professional

On Wed, Feb 14, 2024 at 11:21 AM Andrei Lepikhov
<a.lepikhov@postgrespro.ru> wrote:
>
> So, this example is more about the subtle balance between
> parallel/sequential execution, which can vary from one platform to another.
>

Hi, here I attached two files, expression_num_or_1_100.sql,
expression_num_or_1_10000.sql
it has step by step test cases, also with the tests output.

For both sql files, I already set the max_parallel_workers_per_gather to
10, work_mem to 4GB.
I think the parameters setting should be fine.

in expression_num_or_1_100.sql:
main test table:
create table test_1_100 as (select
(random()*1000)::int x, (random()*1000) y from
generate_series(1,1_000_000) i);

if the number of OR exceeds 29,
the performance with enable_or_transformation (ON) begins to outpace
enable_or_transformation (OFF).

if the number of OR less than 29,
the performance with enable_or_transformation (OFF) is better than
enable_or_transformation (ON).

expression_num_or_1_10000.sql
enable_or_transformation (ON) is always better than
enable_or_transformation (OFF).

My OS: Ubuntu 22.04.3 LTS
I already set the max_parallel_workers_per_gather to 10.
So for all cases, it should use parallelism first?

a better question would be:
how to make the number of OR less than 29 still faster when
enable_or_transformation is ON by only set parameters?

On 16/2/2024 07:00, jian he wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 14, 2024 at 11:21 AM Andrei Lepikhov
> <a.lepikhov@postgrespro.ru> wrote:
> My OS: Ubuntu 22.04.3 LTS
> I already set the max_parallel_workers_per_gather to 10.
> So for all cases, it should use parallelism first?
> 
> a better question would be:
> how to make the number of OR less than 29 still faster when
> enable_or_transformation is ON by only set parameters?
In my test environment this example gives some subtle supremacy to ORs 
over ANY with only 3 ors and less.
Please, provide next EXPLAIN ANALYZE results for the case you want to 
discuss here:
1. with enable_or_transformation enabled
2. with enable_or_transformation disabled
3. with enable_or_transformation disabled but with manual transformation 
OR -> ANY done, to check the overhead of this optimization.

-- 
regards,
Andrei Lepikhov
Postgres Professional

On Fri, Feb 16, 2024 at 1:32 PM Andrei Lepikhov
<a.lepikhov@postgrespro.ru> wrote:
>
> On 16/2/2024 07:00, jian he wrote:
> > On Wed, Feb 14, 2024 at 11:21 AM Andrei Lepikhov
> > <a.lepikhov@postgrespro.ru> wrote:
> > My OS: Ubuntu 22.04.3 LTS
> > I already set the max_parallel_workers_per_gather to 10.
> > So for all cases, it should use parallelism first?
> >
> > a better question would be:
> > how to make the number of OR less than 29 still faster when
> > enable_or_transformation is ON by only set parameters?
> In my test environment this example gives some subtle supremacy to ORs
> over ANY with only 3 ors and less.
> Please, provide next EXPLAIN ANALYZE results for the case you want to
> discuss here:
> 1. with enable_or_transformation enabled
> 2. with enable_or_transformation disabled
> 3. with enable_or_transformation disabled but with manual transformation
> OR -> ANY done, to check the overhead of this optimization.
>

you previously mentioned playing with parallel_tuple_cost and
parallel_setup_cost.
(https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/e3338e82-a28d-4631-9eec-b9c0984b32d5%40postgrespro.ru)

So I did by
`
SET parallel_setup_cost = 0;
SET parallel_tuple_cost = 0;
`

After setting these parameters, overall enable_or_transformation ON is
performance better.
sorry for the noise.
so now I didn't find any corner case where enable_or_transformation is
ON peforms worse than when it's OFF.

+typedef struct OrClauseGroupEntry
+{
+ OrClauseGroupKey key;
+
+ Node   *node;
+ List   *consts;
+ Oid scalar_type;
+ List   *exprs;
+} OrClauseGroupEntry;

I found that the field `scalar_type` was never used.

On 16/2/2024 19:54, jian he wrote:
> After setting these parameters, overall enable_or_transformation ON is
> performance better.
> sorry for the noise.
Don't worry, at least we know a weak point of partial paths estimation.
> so now I didn't find any corner case where enable_or_transformation is
> ON peforms worse than when it's OFF.
> 
> +typedef struct OrClauseGroupEntry
> +{
> + OrClauseGroupKey key;
> +
> + Node   *node;
> + List   *consts;
> + Oid scalar_type;
> + List   *exprs;
> +} OrClauseGroupEntry;
> 
> I found that the field `scalar_type` was never used.
Thanks, fixed.
In attachment - v17 for both patches. As I see it, the only general 
explanation of the idea is not addressed. I'm not sure how deeply we 
should explain it.

-- 
regards,
Andrei Lepikhov
Postgres Professional

On 19/2/2024 19:53, Ranier Vilela wrote:
> v17-0002
> 1) move the vars *arrayconst and *dest, to after if, to avoid makeNode 
> (palloc).
> + Const   *arrayconst;
> + ScalarArrayOpExpr  *dest;
> +
> + pd = (PredicatesData *) lfirst(lc);
> + if (pd->elems == NIL)
> + /* The index doesn't participate in this operation */
> + continue;
> 
> + arrayconst = lsecond_node(Const, saop->args);
> + dest = makeNode(ScalarArrayOpExpr);
Thanks for the review!
I'm not sure I understand you clearly. Does the patch in attachment fix 
the issue you raised?

-- 
regards,
Andrei Lepikhov
Postgres Professional

On Mon, Feb 19, 2024 at 4:35 PM Andrei Lepikhov
<a.lepikhov@postgrespro.ru> wrote:
>
> In attachment - v17 for both patches. As I see it, the only general
> explanation of the idea is not addressed. I'm not sure how deeply we
> should explain it.


> On Tue, Nov 28, 2023 at 5:04 AM Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On Mon, Nov 27, 2023 at 3:02 AM Andrei Lepikhov
> <a.lepikhov@postgrespro.ru> wrote:
> > On 25/11/2023 08:23, Alexander Korotkov wrote:
> > > I think patch certainly gets better in this aspect.  One thing I can't
> > > understand is why do we use home-grown code for resolving
> > > hash-collisions.  You can just define custom hash and match functions
> > > in HASHCTL.  Even if we need to avoid repeated JumbleExpr calls, we
> > > still can save pre-calculated hash value into hash entry and use
> > > custom hash and match.  This doesn't imply us to write our own
> > > collision-resolving code.
> >
> > Thanks, it was an insightful suggestion.
> > I implemented it, and the code has become shorter (see attachment).
>
> Neither the code comments nor the commit message really explain the
> design idea here. That's unfortunate, principally because it makes
> review difficult.
>
> I'm very skeptical about the idea of using JumbleExpr for any part of
> this. It seems fairly expensive, and it might produce false matches.
> If expensive is OK, then why not just use equal()? If it's not, then
> this probably isn't really OK either. But in any case there should be
> comments explaining why this strategy was chosen.

The above message
(https://postgr.es/m/CA%2BTgmoZCgP6FrBQEusn4yaWm02XU8OPeoEMk91q7PRBgwaAkFw%40mail.gmail.com)
seems still not answered.
How can we evaluate whether JumbleExpr is expensive or not?
I used this naive script to test, but didn't find a big difference
when enable_or_transformation is ON or OFF.

`
create table test_1_100 as (select (random()*1000)::int x,
(random()*1000) y from generate_series(1,1_000_000) i);
explain(costs off, analyze)
select * from test
where x = 1 or x + 2= 3 or x + 3= 4 or x + 4= 5
or x + 5= 6 or x + 6= 7 or x + 7= 8 or x + 8= 9 or x + 9=10
or x + 10= 11 or x + 11= 12 or x + 12= 13 or x + 13= 14
or x + 14= 15 or x + 15= 16 or x + 16= 17 or x + 17= 18
or x + 18=19 or x + 19= 20 or x + 20= 21 or x + 21= 22
or x + 22= 23 or x + 23= 24 or x + 24= 25 or x + 25= 26
or x + 26= 27 or x + 27=28 or x + 28= 29 or x + 29= 30
or x + 30= 31 \watch i=0.1 c=10
`

`leftop operator rightop`
the operator can also be volatile.
Do we need to check (op_volatile(opno) == PROVOLATILE_VOLATILE) within
transformBoolExprOr?

On 20/2/2024 11:03, jian he wrote:
>> Neither the code comments nor the commit message really explain the
>> design idea here. That's unfortunate, principally because it makes
>> review difficult.
>>
>> I'm very skeptical about the idea of using JumbleExpr for any part of
>> this. It seems fairly expensive, and it might produce false matches.
>> If expensive is OK, then why not just use equal()? If it's not, then
>> this probably isn't really OK either. But in any case there should be
>> comments explaining why this strategy was chosen.
> 
> The above message
> (https://postgr.es/m/CA%2BTgmoZCgP6FrBQEusn4yaWm02XU8OPeoEMk91q7PRBgwaAkFw%40mail.gmail.com)
> seems still not answered.
> How can we evaluate whether JumbleExpr is expensive or not?
> I used this naive script to test, but didn't find a big difference
> when enable_or_transformation is ON or OFF.
First, I am open to discussion here. But IMO, equal() operation is quite 
expensive by itself. We should use the hash table approach to avoid 
quadratic behaviour when looking for similar clauses in the 'OR' list.
Moreover, we use equal() in many places: selectivity estimations, 
proving of fitting the index, predtest, etc. So, by reducing the clause 
list, we eliminate many calls of the equal() routine, too.

> `leftop operator rightop`
> the operator can also be volatile.
> Do we need to check (op_volatile(opno) == PROVOLATILE_VOLATILE) within
> transformBoolExprOr?
As usual, could you provide a test case to discuss it more objectively?

-- 
regards,
Andrei Lepikhov
Postgres Professional

Hi.
I wrote the first draft patch of the documentation.
it's under the section: Planner Method Configuration (runtime-config-query.html)
but this feature's main meat is in src/backend/parser/parse_expr.c
so it may be slightly inconsistent, as mentioned by others.

You can further furnish it.

On 24.02.2024 14:28, jian he wrote:
> Hi.
> I wrote the first draft patch of the documentation.
> it's under the section: Planner Method Configuration (runtime-config-query.html)
> but this feature's main meat is in src/backend/parser/parse_expr.c
> so it may be slightly inconsistent, as mentioned by others.
>
> You can further furnish it.

Thank you for your work. I found a few spelling mistakes - I fixed this 
and added some information about generating a partial index plan. I 
attached it.

-- 
Regards,
Alena Rybakina
Postgres Professional: http://www.postgrespro.com
The Russian Postgres Company

On 26/2/2024 11:10, Alena Rybakina wrote:
> On 24.02.2024 14:28, jian he wrote:
>> Hi.
>> I wrote the first draft patch of the documentation.
>> it's under the section: Planner Method Configuration 
>> (runtime-config-query.html)
>> but this feature's main meat is in src/backend/parser/parse_expr.c
>> so it may be slightly inconsistent, as mentioned by others.
>>
>> You can further furnish it.
> 
> Thank you for your work. I found a few spelling mistakes - I fixed this 
> and added some information about generating a partial index plan. I 
> attached it.
Thanks Jian and Alena,
It is a good start for the documentation. But I think the runtime-config 
section needs only a condensed description of a feature underlying the 
GUC. The explanations in this section look a bit awkward.
Having looked through the documentation for a better place for a 
detailed explanation, I found array.sgml as a candidate. Also, we have 
the parser's short overview section. I'm unsure about the best place but 
it is better when the server config section.
What's more, there are some weak points in the documentation:
1. We choose constant and variable parts of an expression and don't 
require the constant to be on the right side.
2. We should describe the second part of the feature, where the 
optimiser can split an array to fit the optimal BitmapOr scan path.

-- 
regards,
Andrei Lepikhov
Postgres Professional

On Wed, Feb 28, 2024 at 12:19 PM Andrei Lepikhov
<a.lepikhov@postgrespro.ru> wrote:
>
> On 26/2/2024 11:10, Alena Rybakina wrote:
> > On 24.02.2024 14:28, jian he wrote:
> >> Hi.
> >> I wrote the first draft patch of the documentation.
> >> it's under the section: Planner Method Configuration
> >> (runtime-config-query.html)
> >> but this feature's main meat is in src/backend/parser/parse_expr.c
> >> so it may be slightly inconsistent, as mentioned by others.
> >>
> >> You can further furnish it.
> >
> > Thank you for your work. I found a few spelling mistakes - I fixed this
> > and added some information about generating a partial index plan. I
> > attached it.
> Thanks Jian and Alena,
> It is a good start for the documentation. But I think the runtime-config
> section needs only a condensed description of a feature underlying the
> GUC. The explanations in this section look a bit awkward.
> Having looked through the documentation for a better place for a
> detailed explanation, I found array.sgml as a candidate. Also, we have
> the parser's short overview section. I'm unsure about the best place but
> it is better when the server config section.

doc/src/sgml/array.sgml corresponds to
https://www.postgresql.org/docs/current/arrays.html.
 this GUC is related to parser|optimzier.
adding a GUC to array.sgml seems strange. (I think).

> 2. We should describe the second part of the feature, where the
> optimiser can split an array to fit the optimal BitmapOr scan path.

we can add a sentence explaining that:
it may not do the expression transformation when the original
expression can be utilized by index mechanism.
I am not sure how to rephrase it.

On 28.02.2024 13:07, jian he wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 28, 2024 at 12:19 PM Andrei Lepikhov
> <a.lepikhov@postgrespro.ru> wrote:
>> On 26/2/2024 11:10, Alena Rybakina wrote:
>>> On 24.02.2024 14:28, jian he wrote:
>>>> Hi.
>>>> I wrote the first draft patch of the documentation.
>>>> it's under the section: Planner Method Configuration
>>>> (runtime-config-query.html)
>>>> but this feature's main meat is in src/backend/parser/parse_expr.c
>>>> so it may be slightly inconsistent, as mentioned by others.
>>>>
>>>> You can further furnish it.
>>> Thank you for your work. I found a few spelling mistakes - I fixed this
>>> and added some information about generating a partial index plan. I
>>> attached it.
>> Thanks Jian and Alena,
>> It is a good start for the documentation. But I think the runtime-config
>> section needs only a condensed description of a feature underlying the
>> GUC. The explanations in this section look a bit awkward.
>> Having looked through the documentation for a better place for a
>> detailed explanation, I found array.sgml as a candidate. Also, we have
>> the parser's short overview section. I'm unsure about the best place but
>> it is better when the server config section.
> doc/src/sgml/array.sgml corresponds to
> https://www.postgresql.org/docs/current/arrays.html.
>   this GUC is related to parser|optimzier.
> adding a GUC to array.sgml seems strange. (I think).

I suggest describing our feature in array.sgml and mentioning a GUC there.

We can describe a GUC in config.sgml.

>> 2. We should describe the second part of the feature, where the
>> optimiser can split an array to fit the optimal BitmapOr scan path.
> we can add a sentence explaining that:
> it may not do the expression transformation when the original
> expression can be utilized by index mechanism.
> I am not sure how to rephrase it.

Maybe like that:

It also considers the way to generate a path using BitmapScan indexes, 
converting the transformed expression into expressions separated by "OR" 
operations, and if it turns out to be the best and finally selects the 
best one.

-- 
Regards,
Alena Rybakina
Postgres Professional: http://www.postgrespro.com
The Russian Postgres Company

On 28/2/2024 17:07, jian he wrote:
> doc/src/sgml/array.sgml corresponds to
> https://www.postgresql.org/docs/current/arrays.html.
>   this GUC is related to parser|optimzier.
> adding a GUC to array.sgml seems strange. (I think).
Maybe. In that case, I suggest adding extended comments to functions 
transformBoolExprOr and generate_saop_pathlist (including 
cross-referencing each other). These are starting points to understand 
the transformation and, therefore, a good place for a detailed explanation.

-- 
regards,
Andrei Lepikhov
Postgres Professional

On 28/2/2024 17:27, Alena Rybakina wrote:
> Maybe like that:
> 
> It also considers the way to generate a path using BitmapScan indexes, 
> converting the transformed expression into expressions separated by "OR" 
> operations, and if it turns out to be the best and finally selects the 
> best one.
Thanks,
I spent some time describing the feature with documentation.
A condensed description of the GUC is in the runtime-config file.
Feature description has spread between TransformOrExprToANY and 
generate_saop_pathlist routines.
Also, I've made tiny changes in the code to look more smoothly.
All modifications are integrated into the two new patches.

Feel free to add, change or totally rewrite these changes.

-- 
regards,
Andrei Lepikhov
Postgres Professional

I found that it was mentioned here - https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/CACJufxFrZS07oBHMk1_c8P3A84VZ3ysXiZV8NeU6gAnvu%2BHsVA%40mail.gmail.com.

To be honest, I couldn't find any explanation for that.

Hi, Andrei,

Hi, Alena!

On Thu, Feb 29, 2024 at 10:59 AM Andrei Lepikhov <a.lepikhov@postgrespro.ru> wrote:

On 28/2/2024 17:27, Alena Rybakina wrote:
> Maybe like that:
>
> It also considers the way to generate a path using BitmapScan indexes,
> converting the transformed expression into expressions separated by "OR"
> operations, and if it turns out to be the best and finally selects the
> best one.
Thanks,
I spent some time describing the feature with documentation.
A condensed description of the GUC is in the runtime-config file.
Feature description has spread between TransformOrExprToANY and
generate_saop_pathlist routines.
Also, I've made tiny changes in the code to look more smoothly.
All modifications are integrated into the two new patches.

Feel free to add, change or totally rewrite these changes.

I'm going to review and revise the patch.

One question I have yet.

>        /*
>         * Transformation only works with both side type is not
>         * { array | composite | domain | record }.

Why do we limit transformation for these types?  Also, it doesn't seem the current code restricts anything except composite/record. 

------
Regards,
Alexander Korotkov

-- 
Regards,
Alena Rybakina
Postgres Professional: http://www.postgrespro.com
The Russian Postgres Company

Sorry, I found explanation - https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/CACJufxFS-xcjaWq2Du2OyJUjRAyqCk12Q_zGOPxv61sgrdpw9w%40mail.gmail.com

I found that it was mentioned here - https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/CACJufxFrZS07oBHMk1_c8P3A84VZ3ysXiZV8NeU6gAnvu%2BHsVA%40mail.gmail.com.

To be honest, I couldn't find any explanation for that.

On 01.03.2024 18:33, Alexander Korotkov wrote:

Hi, Andrei,

Hi, Alena!

On Thu, Feb 29, 2024 at 10:59 AM Andrei Lepikhov <a.lepikhov@postgrespro.ru> wrote:

On 28/2/2024 17:27, Alena Rybakina wrote:
> Maybe like that:
>
> It also considers the way to generate a path using BitmapScan indexes,
> converting the transformed expression into expressions separated by "OR"
> operations, and if it turns out to be the best and finally selects the
> best one.
Thanks,
I spent some time describing the feature with documentation.
A condensed description of the GUC is in the runtime-config file.
Feature description has spread between TransformOrExprToANY and
generate_saop_pathlist routines.
Also, I've made tiny changes in the code to look more smoothly.
All modifications are integrated into the two new patches.

Feel free to add, change or totally rewrite these changes.

I'm going to review and revise the patch.

One question I have yet.

>        /*
>         * Transformation only works with both side type is not
>         * { array | composite | domain | record }.

Why do we limit transformation for these types?  Also, it doesn't seem the current code restricts anything except composite/record. 

------
Regards,
Alexander Korotkov

-- 
Regards,
Alena Rybakina
Postgres Professional: http://www.postgrespro.com
The Russian Postgres Company

-- 
Regards,
Alena Rybakina
Postgres Professional: http://www.postgrespro.com
The Russian Postgres Company

On Thu, Feb 29, 2024 at 4:59 PM Andrei Lepikhov
<a.lepikhov@postgrespro.ru> wrote:
>
> On 28/2/2024 17:27, Alena Rybakina wrote:
> > Maybe like that:
> >
> > It also considers the way to generate a path using BitmapScan indexes,
> > converting the transformed expression into expressions separated by "OR"
> > operations, and if it turns out to be the best and finally selects the
> > best one.
> Thanks,
> I spent some time describing the feature with documentation.
> A condensed description of the GUC is in the runtime-config file.
> Feature description has spread between TransformOrExprToANY and
> generate_saop_pathlist routines.
> Also, I've made tiny changes in the code to look more smoothly.
> All modifications are integrated into the two new patches.
>
> Feel free to add, change or totally rewrite these changes.

diff --git a/src/backend/utils/misc/guc_tables.c
b/src/backend/utils/misc/guc_tables.c
index 93ded31ed9..7d3a1ca238 100644
--- a/src/backend/utils/misc/guc_tables.c
+++ b/src/backend/utils/misc/guc_tables.c
@@ -1026,6 +1026,17 @@ struct config_bool ConfigureNamesBool[] =
  true,
  NULL, NULL, NULL
  },
+ {
+ {"enable_or_transformation", PGC_USERSET, QUERY_TUNING_OTHER,
+ gettext_noop("Transform a sequence of OR clauses to an IN expression."),
+ gettext_noop("The planner will replace clauses like 'x=c1 OR x=c2 .."
+ "to the clause 'x IN (c1,c2,...)'"),
+ GUC_EXPLAIN
+ },
+ &enable_or_transformation,
+ true,
+ NULL, NULL, NULL
+ },

I think it should be something like:
+ gettext_noop("Transform a sequence of OR expressions to an array
expression."),
+ gettext_noop("The planner will replace expression like 'x=c1 OR x=c2 "
+ "to the expression 'x = ANY( ARRAY[c1,c2])''"

+JumbleState *
+JumbleExpr(Expr *expr, uint64 *queryId)
+{
+ JumbleState *jstate = NULL;
+
+ Assert(queryId != NULL);
+
+ jstate = (JumbleState *) palloc(sizeof(JumbleState));
+
+ /* Set up workspace for query jumbling */
+ jstate->jumble = (unsigned char *) palloc(JUMBLE_SIZE);
+ jstate->jumble_len = 0;
+ jstate->clocations_buf_size = 32;
+ jstate->clocations = (LocationLen *)
+ palloc(jstate->clocations_buf_size * sizeof(LocationLen));
+ jstate->clocations_count = 0;
+ jstate->highest_extern_param_id = 0;
+
+ /* Compute query ID */
+ _jumbleNode(jstate, (Node *) expr);
+ *queryId = DatumGetUInt64(hash_any_extended(jstate->jumble,
+ jstate->jumble_len,
+ 0));
+
+ return jstate;
+}
queryId may not be a good variable name here?

comment `/* Compute query ID */`
seems not correct, here we are just hashing the expression?


+/*
+ * Dynahash match function to use in guc_hashtab
+ */
+static int
+orclause_match(const void *data1, const void *data2, Size keysize)
+{
+ OrClauseGroupKey   *key1 = (OrClauseGroupKey *) data1;
+ OrClauseGroupKey   *key2 = (OrClauseGroupKey *) data2;
+
+ Assert(sizeof(OrClauseGroupKey) == keysize);
+
+ if (key1->opno == key2->opno && key1->exprtype == key2->exprtype &&
+ equal(key1->expr, key2->expr))
+ return 0;
+
+ return 1;
+}
the above comments seem not correct?

       <para>
        Enables or disables the query planner's ability to lookup and
group multiple
        similar OR expressions to ANY (<xref
linkend="functions-comparisons-any-some"/>) expressions.
        The grouping technique of this transformation is based on the
similarity of variable sides.
        It applies to equality expressions only. One side of such an expression
        must be a constant clause, and the other must contain a variable clause.
        The default is <literal>on</literal>.
        Also, during BitmapScan paths generation it enables analysis of elements
        of IN or ANY constant arrays to cover such clause with BitmapOr set of
        partial index scans.
        </para>
` It applies to equality expressions only.` seems not correct?
`select * from tenk1 where unique1 < 1 or unique1 < 2; ` can also do
the transformation.
`similarity of variable sides.` seems not correct,
should  it be 'sameness of the variable sides`?

in [1], we can get:
expression IN (value [, ...])
is equivalent to
expression = value1
OR
expression = value2
OR

in [2], we can get:
SOME is a synonym for ANY. IN is equivalent to = ANY.

but still transforming OR to ANY is not intuitive.
a normal user may not know what is "transforming OR to ANY".
so maybe adding a simple example at
<varlistentry id="guc-enable-or-transformation"
xreflabel="enable_or_transformation">
would be great. which, I did at previous thread.

I also did some refactoring based on v18, attached.

[1] https://www.postgresql.org/docs/current/functions-comparisons.html#FUNCTIONS-COMPARISONS-IN-SCALAR
[2] https://www.postgresql.org/docs/current/functions-subquery.html#FUNCTIONS-SUBQUERY-ANY-SOME

On 1/3/2024 22:33, Alexander Korotkov wrote:
> I'm going to review and revise the patch.
Nice!
> 
> One question I have yet.
> 
>  >        /*
>  >         * Transformation only works with both side type is not
>  >         * { array | composite | domain | record }.
> 
> Why do we limit transformation for these types?  Also, it doesn't seem 
> the current code restricts anything except composite/record.
Answer can be a bit long. Let's try to see comment a4424c5 at first.

We forbid record types although they can have typarray. It is because of 
the RowExpr comparison specific. Although we have the record_eq() 
routine, all base types in comparing records must be strictly the same. 
Let me show:

explain analyze
SELECT * FROM
(SELECT ROW(relpages,relnatts) AS x FROM pg_class LIMIT 10) AS q1,
(SELECT ROW(relpages,relallvisible) AS x FROM pg_class LIMIT 10) AS q2
WHERE q1.x=q2.x;
ERROR:  cannot compare dissimilar column types smallint and integer at 
record column 2

As you can see, we have smallint and integer in the second position of 
RowExpr and it causes the ERROR. It is the reason, why PostgreSQL 
transforms ROW expressions to the series of ORs, Look:

explain (costs off)
SELECT oid,relname FROM pg_class
WHERE (oid,relname) IN ((1, 'a'), (2,'b'));

  Bitmap Heap Scan on pg_class
    Recheck Cond: ((relname = 'a'::name) OR (relname = 'b'::name))
    Filter: (((oid = '1'::oid) AND (relname = 'a'::name)) OR ((oid = 
'2'::oid) AND (relname = 'b'::name)))
    ->  BitmapOr
...

So, transforming composite types to the ScalarArrayOpExpr expression 
doesn't make sense. Am I wrong?

The same with domain. If it have composite base type we reject the 
transformation according to the logic above.

What about arrays? As I see, arrays don't have typarray and we can avoid 
to spend more cycles after detection of TYPCATEGORY_ARRAY. I haven't 
done it yet because have a second thought: what if to combine arrays 
into the larger one? I'm unsure on that, so we can forbid it too.

-- 
regards,
Andrei Lepikhov
Postgres Professional

On 4/3/2024 09:26, jian he wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 29, 2024 at 4:59 PM Andrei Lepikhov
>> Feel free to add, change or totally rewrite these changes.
On replacement of static ScalarArrayOpExpr dest with dynamic allocated one:
After discussion [1] I agree with that replacement.

Some style (and language) changes in comments I haven't applied because 
it looks debatable for me.

> I think it should be something like:
> + gettext_noop("Transform a sequence of OR expressions to an array
> expression."),
> + gettext_noop("The planner will replace expression like 'x=c1 OR x=c2 "
> + "to the expression 'x = ANY( ARRAY[c1,c2])''"
Fixed

> queryId may not be a good variable name here?
Not sure. QueryId is a concept, part of queryjumble technique and can be 
used by other tools. It just tells the developer what it is the same 
thing as Query Jumbling but for a separate expression.
At least you don't insist on removing of JumbleState return pointer that 
looks strange for a simple hash ...
> 
> comment `/* Compute query ID */`
> seems not correct, here we are just hashing the expression?
The same as above.
> +/*
> + * Dynahash match function to use in guc_hashtab
> the above comments seem not correct?
Yes, fixed.

> ` It applies to equality expressions only.` seems not correct?
> `select * from tenk1 where unique1 < 1 or unique1 < 2; ` can also do
> the transformation.
Yes, I forgot it.
> `similarity of variable sides.` seems not correct,
> should  it be 'sameness of the variable sides`?
The term 'equivalence' looks better *).

> in [2], we can get:
> SOME is a synonym for ANY. IN is equivalent to = ANY.
> 
> but still transforming OR to ANY is not intuitive.
> a normal user may not know what is "transforming OR to ANY".
> so maybe adding a simple example at
> <varlistentry id="guc-enable-or-transformation"
> xreflabel="enable_or_transformation">
> would be great. which, I did at previous thread.
Not sure. Examples in that section are unusual things. What's more, 
should a user who doesn't know what it means to change this setting? 
Let's wait for other opinions.

[1] https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/2157387.1709068790@sss.pgh.pa.us

-- 
regards,
Andrei Lepikhov
Postgres Professional

On 5/3/2024 12:30, Andrei Lepikhov wrote:
> On 4/3/2024 09:26, jian he wrote:
... and the new version of the patchset is attached.

-- 
regards,
Andrei Lepikhov
Postgres Professional

Hi!

On 07.03.2024 17:51, Alexander Korotkov wrote:
> Hi!
>
> On Tue, Mar 5, 2024 at 9:59 AM Andrei Lepikhov 
> <a.lepikhov@postgrespro.ru> wrote:
> > On 5/3/2024 12:30, Andrei Lepikhov wrote:
> > > On 4/3/2024 09:26, jian he wrote:
> > ... and the new version of the patchset is attached.
>
> I made some revisions for the patchset.
> 1) Use hash_combine() to combine hash values.
> 2) Upper limit the number of array elements by MAX_SAOP_ARRAY_SIZE.
> 3) Better save the original order of clauses by putting hash entries 
> and untransformable clauses to the same list.  A lot of differences in 
> regression tests output have gone.
Thank you for your changes. I agree with them.
>
> One important issue I found.
>
> # create table t as (select i::int%100 i from generate_series(1,10000) i);
> # analyze t;
> # explain select * from t where i = 1 or i = 1;
>                      QUERY PLAN
> -----------------------------------------------------
>  Seq Scan on t  (cost=0.00..189.00 rows=200 width=4)
>    Filter: (i = ANY ('{1,1}'::integer[]))
> (2 rows)
>
> # set enable_or_transformation = false;
> SET
> # explain select * from t where i = 1 or i = 1;
>                      QUERY PLAN
> -----------------------------------------------------
>  Seq Scan on t  (cost=0.00..189.00 rows=100 width=4)
>    Filter: (i = 1)
> (2 rows)
>
> We don't make array values unique.  That might make query execution 
> performance somewhat worse, and also makes selectivity estimation 
> worse.  I suggest Andrei and/or Alena should implement making array 
> values unique.
>
>
I have corrected this and some spelling mistakes. The 
unique_any_elements_change.no-cfbot file contains changes.

While I was correcting the test results caused by such changes, I 
noticed that the same behavior was when converting the IN expression,
and this can be seen in the result of the regression test:

  EXPLAIN (COSTS OFF)
  SELECT unique2 FROM onek2
  WHERE stringu1 IN ('A', 'A') AND (stringu1 = 'A' OR stringu1 = 'A');
                                 QUERY PLAN
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
   Bitmap Heap Scan on onek2
     Recheck Cond: (stringu1 < 'B'::name)
    Filter: ((stringu1 = ANY ('{A,A}'::name[])) AND (stringu1 = 'A'::name))
     ->  Bitmap Index Scan on onek2_u2_prtl
  (4 rows)

-- 
Regards,
Alena Rybakina
Postgres Professional: http://www.postgrespro.com
The Russian Postgres Company

+ if (!IsA(lfirst(lc), Invalid))
+ {
+ or_list = lappend(or_list, lfirst(lc));
+ continue;
+ }
 Currently `IsA(lfirst(lc)` works.
but is this generally OK? I didn't find any other examples.
do you need do cast, like `(Node *) lfirst(lc);`

If I understand the logic correctly:
In `foreach(lc, args) ` if everything goes well, it will reach
`hashkey.type = T_Invalid;`
which will make `IsA(lfirst(lc), Invalid)` be true.
adding some comments to the above code would be great.

On 7/3/2024 21:51, Alexander Korotkov wrote:
> Hi!
> 
> On Tue, Mar 5, 2024 at 9:59 AM Andrei Lepikhov 
> <a.lepikhov@postgrespro.ru <mailto:a.lepikhov@postgrespro.ru>> wrote:
>  > On 5/3/2024 12:30, Andrei Lepikhov wrote:
>  > > On 4/3/2024 09:26, jian he wrote:
>  > ... and the new version of the patchset is attached.
> 
> I made some revisions for the patchset.
Great!
> 1) Use hash_combine() to combine hash values.
Looks better
> 2) Upper limit the number of array elements by MAX_SAOP_ARRAY_SIZE.

I'm not convinced about this limit. The initial reason was to combine 
long lists of ORs into the array because such a transformation made at 
an early stage increases efficiency.
I understand the necessity of this limit in the array decomposition 
routine but not in the creation one.

> 3) Better save the original order of clauses by putting hash entries and 
> untransformable clauses to the same list.  A lot of differences in 
> regression tests output have gone.
I agree that reducing the number of changes in regression tests looks 
better. But to achieve this, you introduced a hack that increases the 
complexity of the code. Is it worth it? Maybe it would be better to make 
one-time changes in tests instead of getting this burden on board. Or 
have you meant something more introducing the node type?

> We don't make array values unique.  That might make query execution 
> performance somewhat worse, and also makes selectivity estimation 
> worse.  I suggest Andrei and/or Alena should implement making array 
> values unique.
The fix Alena has made looks correct. But I urge you to think twice:
The optimizer doesn't care about duplicates, so why do we do it?
What's more, this optimization is intended to speed up queries with long 
OR lists. Using the list_append_unique() comparator on such lists could 
impact performance. I suggest sticking to the common rule and leaving 
the responsibility on the user's shoulders.
At least, we should do this optimization later, in one pass, with 
sorting elements before building the array. But what if we don't have a 
sort operator for the type?

-- 
regards,
Andrei Lepikhov
Postgres Professional

Hi Andrei,

Thank you for your response.

On Mon, Mar 11, 2024 at 7:13 AM Andrei Lepikhov
<a.lepikhov@postgrespro.ru> wrote:
> On 7/3/2024 21:51, Alexander Korotkov wrote:
> > Hi!
> >
> > On Tue, Mar 5, 2024 at 9:59 AM Andrei Lepikhov
> > <a.lepikhov@postgrespro.ru <mailto:a.lepikhov@postgrespro.ru>> wrote:
> >  > On 5/3/2024 12:30, Andrei Lepikhov wrote:
> >  > > On 4/3/2024 09:26, jian he wrote:
> >  > ... and the new version of the patchset is attached.
> >
> > I made some revisions for the patchset.
> Great!
> > 1) Use hash_combine() to combine hash values.
> Looks better
> > 2) Upper limit the number of array elements by MAX_SAOP_ARRAY_SIZE.
>
> I'm not convinced about this limit. The initial reason was to combine
> long lists of ORs into the array because such a transformation made at
> an early stage increases efficiency.
> I understand the necessity of this limit in the array decomposition
> routine but not in the creation one.

The comment near MAX_SAOP_ARRAY_SIZE says that this limit is because
N^2 algorithms could be applied to arrays.  Are you sure that's not
true for our case?

> > 3) Better save the original order of clauses by putting hash entries and
> > untransformable clauses to the same list.  A lot of differences in
> > regression tests output have gone.
> I agree that reducing the number of changes in regression tests looks
> better. But to achieve this, you introduced a hack that increases the
> complexity of the code. Is it worth it? Maybe it would be better to make
> one-time changes in tests instead of getting this burden on board. Or
> have you meant something more introducing the node type?

For me the reason is not just a regression test.  The current code
keeps the original order of quals as much as possible.  The OR
transformation code reorders quals even in cases when it doesn't
eventually apply any optimization.  I don't think that's acceptable.
However, less hackery ways for this is welcome for sure.

> > We don't make array values unique.  That might make query execution
> > performance somewhat worse, and also makes selectivity estimation
> > worse.  I suggest Andrei and/or Alena should implement making array
> > values unique.
> The fix Alena has made looks correct. But I urge you to think twice:
> The optimizer doesn't care about duplicates, so why do we do it?
> What's more, this optimization is intended to speed up queries with long
> OR lists. Using the list_append_unique() comparator on such lists could
> impact performance. I suggest sticking to the common rule and leaving
> the responsibility on the user's shoulders.

I don't see why the optimizer doesn't care about duplicates for OR
lists.  As I showed before in an example, it successfully removes the
duplicate.  So, currently OR transformation clearly introduces a
regression in terms of selectivity estimation.  I think we should
evade that.

> At least, we should do this optimization later, in one pass, with
> sorting elements before building the array. But what if we don't have a
> sort operator for the type?

It was probably discussed before, but can we do our work later?  There
is a canonicalize_qual() which calls find_duplicate_ors().  This is
the place where currently duplicate OR clauses are removed.  Could our
OR-to-ANY transformation be just another call from
canonicalize_qual()?

------
Regards,
Alexander Korotkov

On 11/3/2024 18:31, Alexander Korotkov wrote:
>> I'm not convinced about this limit. The initial reason was to combine
>> long lists of ORs into the array because such a transformation made at
>> an early stage increases efficiency.
>> I understand the necessity of this limit in the array decomposition
>> routine but not in the creation one.
> 
> The comment near MAX_SAOP_ARRAY_SIZE says that this limit is because
> N^2 algorithms could be applied to arrays.  Are you sure that's not
> true for our case?
When you operate an array, indeed. But when we transform ORs to an 
array, not. Just check all the places in the optimizer and even the 
executor where we would pass along the list of ORs. This is why I think 
we should use this optimization even more intensively for huge numbers 
of ORs in an attempt to speed up the overall query.

>>> 3) Better save the original order of clauses by putting hash entries and
>>> untransformable clauses to the same list.  A lot of differences in
>>> regression tests output have gone.
>> I agree that reducing the number of changes in regression tests looks
>> better. But to achieve this, you introduced a hack that increases the
>> complexity of the code. Is it worth it? Maybe it would be better to make
>> one-time changes in tests instead of getting this burden on board. Or
>> have you meant something more introducing the node type?
> 
> For me the reason is not just a regression test.  The current code
> keeps the original order of quals as much as possible.  The OR
> transformation code reorders quals even in cases when it doesn't
> eventually apply any optimization.  I don't think that's acceptable.
> However, less hackery ways for this is welcome for sure.
Why is it unacceptable? Can the user implement some order-dependent 
logic with clauses, and will it be correct?
Otherwise, it is a matter of taste, and generally, this decision is up 
to you.
> 
>>> We don't make array values unique.  That might make query execution
>>> performance somewhat worse, and also makes selectivity estimation
>>> worse.  I suggest Andrei and/or Alena should implement making array
>>> values unique.
>> The fix Alena has made looks correct. But I urge you to think twice:
>> The optimizer doesn't care about duplicates, so why do we do it?
>> What's more, this optimization is intended to speed up queries with long
>> OR lists. Using the list_append_unique() comparator on such lists could
>> impact performance. I suggest sticking to the common rule and leaving
>> the responsibility on the user's shoulders.
> 
> I don't see why the optimizer doesn't care about duplicates for OR
> lists.  As I showed before in an example, it successfully removes the
> duplicate.  So, currently OR transformation clearly introduces a
> regression in terms of selectivity estimation.  I think we should
> evade that.
I think you are right. It is probably a better place than any other to 
remove duplicates in an array. I just think we should sort and remove 
duplicates from entry->consts in one pass. Thus, this optimisation 
should be applied to sortable constants.

> 
>> At least, we should do this optimization later, in one pass, with
>> sorting elements before building the array. But what if we don't have a
>> sort operator for the type?
> 
> It was probably discussed before, but can we do our work later?  There
> is a canonicalize_qual() which calls find_duplicate_ors().  This is
> the place where currently duplicate OR clauses are removed.  Could our
> OR-to-ANY transformation be just another call from
> canonicalize_qual()?
Hmm, we already tried to do it at that point. I vaguely recall some 
issues caused by this approach. Anyway, it should be done as quickly as 
possible to increase the effect of the optimization.

-- 
regards,
Andrei Lepikhov
Postgres Professional

On Mon, Mar 11, 2024 at 2:43 PM Andrei Lepikhov
<a.lepikhov@postgrespro.ru> wrote:
> On 11/3/2024 18:31, Alexander Korotkov wrote:
> >> I'm not convinced about this limit. The initial reason was to combine
> >> long lists of ORs into the array because such a transformation made at
> >> an early stage increases efficiency.
> >> I understand the necessity of this limit in the array decomposition
> >> routine but not in the creation one.
> >
> > The comment near MAX_SAOP_ARRAY_SIZE says that this limit is because
> > N^2 algorithms could be applied to arrays.  Are you sure that's not
> > true for our case?
> When you operate an array, indeed. But when we transform ORs to an
> array, not. Just check all the places in the optimizer and even the
> executor where we would pass along the list of ORs. This is why I think
> we should use this optimization even more intensively for huge numbers
> of ORs in an attempt to speed up the overall query.

Ok.

> >>> 3) Better save the original order of clauses by putting hash entries and
> >>> untransformable clauses to the same list.  A lot of differences in
> >>> regression tests output have gone.
> >> I agree that reducing the number of changes in regression tests looks
> >> better. But to achieve this, you introduced a hack that increases the
> >> complexity of the code. Is it worth it? Maybe it would be better to make
> >> one-time changes in tests instead of getting this burden on board. Or
> >> have you meant something more introducing the node type?
> >
> > For me the reason is not just a regression test.  The current code
> > keeps the original order of quals as much as possible.  The OR
> > transformation code reorders quals even in cases when it doesn't
> > eventually apply any optimization.  I don't think that's acceptable.
> > However, less hackery ways for this is welcome for sure.
> Why is it unacceptable? Can the user implement some order-dependent
> logic with clauses, and will it be correct?
> Otherwise, it is a matter of taste, and generally, this decision is up
> to you.

I think this is an important property that the user sees the quals in
the plan in the same order as they were in the query.  And if some
transformations are applied, then the order is saved as much as
possible.  I don't think we should sacrifice this property without
strong reasons.  A bit of code complexity is definitely not that
reason for me.

> >>> We don't make array values unique.  That might make query execution
> >>> performance somewhat worse, and also makes selectivity estimation
> >>> worse.  I suggest Andrei and/or Alena should implement making array
> >>> values unique.
> >> The fix Alena has made looks correct. But I urge you to think twice:
> >> The optimizer doesn't care about duplicates, so why do we do it?
> >> What's more, this optimization is intended to speed up queries with long
> >> OR lists. Using the list_append_unique() comparator on such lists could
> >> impact performance. I suggest sticking to the common rule and leaving
> >> the responsibility on the user's shoulders.
> >
> > I don't see why the optimizer doesn't care about duplicates for OR
> > lists.  As I showed before in an example, it successfully removes the
> > duplicate.  So, currently OR transformation clearly introduces a
> > regression in terms of selectivity estimation.  I think we should
> > evade that.
> I think you are right. It is probably a better place than any other to
> remove duplicates in an array. I just think we should sort and remove
> duplicates from entry->consts in one pass. Thus, this optimisation
> should be applied to sortable constants.

Ok.

> >> At least, we should do this optimization later, in one pass, with
> >> sorting elements before building the array. But what if we don't have a
> >> sort operator for the type?
> >
> > It was probably discussed before, but can we do our work later?  There
> > is a canonicalize_qual() which calls find_duplicate_ors().  This is
> > the place where currently duplicate OR clauses are removed.  Could our
> > OR-to-ANY transformation be just another call from
> > canonicalize_qual()?
> Hmm, we already tried to do it at that point. I vaguely recall some
> issues caused by this approach. Anyway, it should be done as quickly as
> possible to increase the effect of the optimization.

I think there were provided quite strong reasons why this shouldn't be
implemented at the parse analysis stage [1], [2], [3].  The
canonicalize_qual() looks quite appropriate place for that since it
does similar transformations.

Links.
1. https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/CA%2BTgmoZCgP6FrBQEusn4yaWm02XU8OPeoEMk91q7PRBgwaAkFw%40mail.gmail.com
2. https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/CAH2-Wzm2%3Dnf_JhiM3A2yetxRs8Nd2NuN3JqH%3Dfm_YWYd1oYoPg%40mail.gmail.com
3. https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/CA%2BTgmoaOiwMXBBTYknczepoZzKTp-Zgk5ss1%2BCuVQE-eFTqBmA%40mail.gmail.com

------
Regards,
Alexander Korotkov

On 12/3/2024 22:20, Alexander Korotkov wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 11, 2024 at 2:43 PM Andrei Lepikhov
>> I think you are right. It is probably a better place than any other to
>> remove duplicates in an array. I just think we should sort and remove
>> duplicates from entry->consts in one pass. Thus, this optimisation
>> should be applied to sortable constants.
> 
> Ok.
New version of the patch set implemented all we have agreed on for now. 
We can return MAX_SAOP_ARRAY_SIZE constraint and Alena's approach to 
duplicates deletion for non-sortable cases at the end.
> 
>> Hmm, we already tried to do it at that point. I vaguely recall some
>> issues caused by this approach. Anyway, it should be done as quickly as
>> possible to increase the effect of the optimization.
> 
> I think there were provided quite strong reasons why this shouldn't be
> implemented at the parse analysis stage [1], [2], [3].  The
> canonicalize_qual() looks quite appropriate place for that since it
> does similar transformations.
Ok. Let's discuss these reasons. In Robert's opinion [1,3], we should do 
the transformation based on the cost model. But in the canonicalize_qual 
routine, we still make the transformation blindly. Moreover, the second 
patch reduces the weight of this reason, doesn't it? Maybe we shouldn't 
think about that as about optimisation but some 'general form of 
expression'?
Peter [2] worries about the possible transformation outcomes at this 
stage. But remember, we already transform clauses like ROW() IN (...) to 
a series of ORs here, so it is not an issue. Am I wrong?
Why did we discard the attempt with canonicalize_qual on the previous 
iteration? - The stage of parsing is much more native for building SAOP 
quals. We can reuse make_scalar_array_op and other stuff, for example.
During the optimisation stage, the only list partitioning machinery 
creates SAOP based on a list of constants. So, in theory, it is possible 
to implement. But do we really need to make the code more complex?
> 
> Links.
> 1. https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/CA%2BTgmoZCgP6FrBQEusn4yaWm02XU8OPeoEMk91q7PRBgwaAkFw%40mail.gmail.com
> 2. https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/CAH2-Wzm2%3Dnf_JhiM3A2yetxRs8Nd2NuN3JqH%3Dfm_YWYd1oYoPg%40mail.gmail.com
> 3. https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/CA%2BTgmoaOiwMXBBTYknczepoZzKTp-Zgk5ss1%2BCuVQE-eFTqBmA%40mail.gmail.com
    
-- 
regards,
Andrei Lepikhov
Postgres Professional

On Wed, Mar 13, 2024 at 7:52 AM Andrei Lepikhov
<a.lepikhov@postgrespro.ru> wrote:
> On 12/3/2024 22:20, Alexander Korotkov wrote:
> > On Mon, Mar 11, 2024 at 2:43 PM Andrei Lepikhov
> >> I think you are right. It is probably a better place than any other to
> >> remove duplicates in an array. I just think we should sort and remove
> >> duplicates from entry->consts in one pass. Thus, this optimisation
> >> should be applied to sortable constants.
> >
> > Ok.
> New version of the patch set implemented all we have agreed on for now.
> We can return MAX_SAOP_ARRAY_SIZE constraint and Alena's approach to
> duplicates deletion for non-sortable cases at the end.
> >
> >> Hmm, we already tried to do it at that point. I vaguely recall some
> >> issues caused by this approach. Anyway, it should be done as quickly as
> >> possible to increase the effect of the optimization.
> >
> > I think there were provided quite strong reasons why this shouldn't be
> > implemented at the parse analysis stage [1], [2], [3].  The
> > canonicalize_qual() looks quite appropriate place for that since it
> > does similar transformations.
> Ok. Let's discuss these reasons. In Robert's opinion [1,3], we should do
> the transformation based on the cost model. But in the canonicalize_qual
> routine, we still make the transformation blindly. Moreover, the second
> patch reduces the weight of this reason, doesn't it? Maybe we shouldn't
> think about that as about optimisation but some 'general form of
> expression'?
> Peter [2] worries about the possible transformation outcomes at this
> stage. But remember, we already transform clauses like ROW() IN (...) to
> a series of ORs here, so it is not an issue. Am I wrong?
> Why did we discard the attempt with canonicalize_qual on the previous
> iteration? - The stage of parsing is much more native for building SAOP
> quals. We can reuse make_scalar_array_op and other stuff, for example.
> During the optimisation stage, the only list partitioning machinery
> creates SAOP based on a list of constants. So, in theory, it is possible
> to implement. But do we really need to make the code more complex?

As we currently do OR-to-ANY transformation at the parse stage, the
system catalog (including views, inheritance clauses, partial and
expression indexes, and others) would have a form depending on
enable_or_transformation at the moment of DDL execution.  I think this
is rather wrong.  The enable_or_transformation should be run-time
optimization which affects the resulting query plan, its result
shouldn't be persistent.

Regarding the ROW() IN (...) precedent.

1. AFAICS, this is not exactly an optimization.  This transformation
allows us to perform type matching individually for every value.
Therefore it allows the execute some queries which otherwise would end
up with error.
2. I don't think this is a sample of good design.  This is rather
hack, which is historically here, but we don't want to replicate this
experience.

Given all of the above, I think moving transformation to the
canonicalize_qual() would be the right way to go.

------
Regards,
Alexander Korotkov

On 13/3/2024 18:05, Alexander Korotkov wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 13, 2024 at 7:52 AM Andrei Lepikhov
> Given all of the above, I think moving transformation to the
> canonicalize_qual() would be the right way to go.
Ok, I will try to move the code.
I have no idea about the timings so far. I recall the last time I got 
bogged down in tons of duplicated code. I hope with an almost-ready 
sketch, it will be easier.

-- 
regards,
Andrei Lepikhov
Postgres Professional

On 14/3/2024 16:31, Alexander Korotkov wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 13, 2024 at 2:16 PM Andrei Lepikhov 
> <a.lepikhov@postgrespro.ru <mailto:a.lepikhov@postgrespro.ru>> wrote:
>  > On 13/3/2024 18:05, Alexander Korotkov wrote:
>  > > On Wed, Mar 13, 2024 at 7:52 AM Andrei Lepikhov
>  > > Given all of the above, I think moving transformation to the
>  > > canonicalize_qual() would be the right way to go.
>  > Ok, I will try to move the code.
>  > I have no idea about the timings so far. I recall the last time I got
>  > bogged down in tons of duplicated code. I hope with an almost-ready
>  > sketch, it will be easier.
> 
> Thank you!  I'll be looking forward to the updated patch.
Okay, I moved the 0001-* patch to the prepqual.c module. See it in the 
attachment. I treat it as a transient patch.
It has positive outcomes as well as negative ones.
The most damaging result you can see in the partition_prune test:
partition pruning, in some cases, moved to the executor initialization 
stage. I guess, we should avoid it somehow in the next version.

-- 
regards,
Andrei Lepikhov
Postgres Professional

On Thu, Mar 14, 2024 at 12:11 PM Andrei Lepikhov
<a.lepikhov@postgrespro.ru> wrote:
>
> On 14/3/2024 16:31, Alexander Korotkov wrote:
> > On Wed, Mar 13, 2024 at 2:16 PM Andrei Lepikhov
> > <a.lepikhov@postgrespro.ru <mailto:a.lepikhov@postgrespro.ru>> wrote:
> >  > On 13/3/2024 18:05, Alexander Korotkov wrote:
> >  > > On Wed, Mar 13, 2024 at 7:52 AM Andrei Lepikhov
> >  > > Given all of the above, I think moving transformation to the
> >  > > canonicalize_qual() would be the right way to go.
> >  > Ok, I will try to move the code.
> >  > I have no idea about the timings so far. I recall the last time I got
> >  > bogged down in tons of duplicated code. I hope with an almost-ready
> >  > sketch, it will be easier.
> >
> > Thank you!  I'll be looking forward to the updated patch.
> Okay, I moved the 0001-* patch to the prepqual.c module. See it in the
> attachment. I treat it as a transient patch.
> It has positive outcomes as well as negative ones.
> The most damaging result you can see in the partition_prune test:
> partition pruning, in some cases, moved to the executor initialization
> stage. I guess, we should avoid it somehow in the next version.

Thank you, Andrei.  Looks like a very undesirable side effect.  Do you
have any idea why it happens?  Partition pruning should work correctly
for both transformed and non-transformed quals, why does
transformation hurt it?

------
Regards,
Alexander Korotkov

On 14/3/2024 17:39, Alexander Korotkov wrote:
> Thank you, Andrei.  Looks like a very undesirable side effect.  Do you
> have any idea why it happens?  Partition pruning should work correctly
> for both transformed and non-transformed quals, why does
> transformation hurt it?
Now we have the v23-0001-* patch with all issues resolved. The last one 
which caused execution stage pruning was about necessity to evaluate 
SAOP expression right after transformation. In previous version the core 
executed it on transformed expressions.

 > As you can see this case is not related to partial indexes.  Just no
 > index selective for the whole query.  However, splitting scan by the
 > OR qual lets use a combination of two selective indexes.
Thanks for the case. I will try to resolve it.

-- 
regards,
Andrei Lepikhov
Postgres Professional

On 14/3/2024 16:31, Alexander Korotkov wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 13, 2024 at 2:16 PM Andrei Lepikhov 
> As you can see this case is not related to partial indexes.  Just no 
> index selective for the whole query.  However, splitting scan by the OR 
> qual lets use a combination of two selective indexes.
I have rewritten the 0002-* patch according to your concern. A candidate 
and some thoughts are attached.
As I see, we have a problem here: expanding each array and trying to 
apply an element to each index can result in a lengthy planning stage.
Also, an index scan with the SAOP may potentially be more effective than 
with the list of OR clauses.
Originally, the transformation's purpose was to reduce a query's 
complexity and the number of optimization ways to speed up planning and 
(sometimes) execution. Here, we reduce planning complexity only in the 
case of an array size larger than MAX_SAOP_ARRAY_SIZE.
Maybe we can fall back to the previous version of the second patch, 
keeping in mind that someone who wants to get maximum profit from the 
BitmapOr scan of multiple indexes can just disable this optimization, 
enabling deep search of the most optimal scanning way?
As a compromise solution, I propose adding one more option to the 
previous version: if an element doesn't fit any partial index, try to 
cover it with a plain index.
In this case, we still do not guarantee the most optimal fit of elements 
to the set of indexes, but we speed up planning. Does that make sense?

-- 
regards,
Andrei Lepikhov
Postgres Professional

On Tue, Mar 19, 2024 at 7:17 AM Andrei Lepikhov
<a.lepikhov@postgrespro.ru> wrote:
> On 14/3/2024 16:31, Alexander Korotkov wrote:
> > On Wed, Mar 13, 2024 at 2:16 PM Andrei Lepikhov
> > As you can see this case is not related to partial indexes.  Just no
> > index selective for the whole query.  However, splitting scan by the OR
> > qual lets use a combination of two selective indexes.
> I have rewritten the 0002-* patch according to your concern. A candidate
> and some thoughts are attached.
> As I see, we have a problem here: expanding each array and trying to
> apply an element to each index can result in a lengthy planning stage.
> Also, an index scan with the SAOP may potentially be more effective than
> with the list of OR clauses.
> Originally, the transformation's purpose was to reduce a query's
> complexity and the number of optimization ways to speed up planning and
> (sometimes) execution. Here, we reduce planning complexity only in the
> case of an array size larger than MAX_SAOP_ARRAY_SIZE.
> Maybe we can fall back to the previous version of the second patch,
> keeping in mind that someone who wants to get maximum profit from the
> BitmapOr scan of multiple indexes can just disable this optimization,
> enabling deep search of the most optimal scanning way?
> As a compromise solution, I propose adding one more option to the
> previous version: if an element doesn't fit any partial index, try to
> cover it with a plain index.
> In this case, we still do not guarantee the most optimal fit of elements
> to the set of indexes, but we speed up planning. Does that make sense?

Thank you for your research Andrei.  Now things get more clear on the
advantages and disadvantages of this transformation.

The current patch has a boolean guc enable_or_transformation.
However, when we have just a few ORs to be transformated, then we
should get less performance gain from the transformation and higher
chances to lose a good bitmap scan plan from that.  When there is a
huge list of ORs to be transformed, then the performance gain is
greater and it is less likely we could lose a good bitmap scan plan.

What do you think about introducing a GUC threshold value: the minimum
size of list to do OR-to-ANY transformation?
min_list_or_transformation or something.

------
Regards,
Alexander Korotkov

On 28/3/2024 16:54, Alexander Korotkov wrote:
> The current patch has a boolean guc enable_or_transformation.
> However, when we have just a few ORs to be transformated, then we
> should get less performance gain from the transformation and higher
> chances to lose a good bitmap scan plan from that.  When there is a
> huge list of ORs to be transformed, then the performance gain is
> greater and it is less likely we could lose a good bitmap scan plan.
> 
> What do you think about introducing a GUC threshold value: the minimum
> size of list to do OR-to-ANY transformation?
> min_list_or_transformation or something.
I labelled it or_transformation_limit (see in attachment). Feel free to 
rename it.
It's important to note that the limiting GUC doesn't operate 
symmetrically for forward, OR -> SAOP, and backward SAOP -> OR 
operations. In the forward case, it functions as you've proposed. 
However, in the backward case, we only check whether the feature is 
enabled or not. This is due to our existing limitation, 
MAX_SAOP_ARRAY_SIZE, and the fact that we can't match the length of the 
original OR list with the sizes of the resulting SAOPs. For instance, a 
lengthy OR list with 100 elements can be transformed into 3 SAOPs, each 
with a size of around 30 elements.
One aspect that requires attention is the potential inefficiency of our 
OR -> ANY transformation when we have a number of elements less than 
MAX_SAOP_ARRAY_SIZE. This is because we perform a reverse transformation 
ANY -> OR at the stage of generating bitmap scans. If the BitmapScan 
path dominates, we may have done unnecessary work. Is this an occurrence 
that we should address?
But the concern above may just be a point of improvement later: We can 
add one more strategy to the optimizer: testing each array element as an 
OR clause; we can also provide a BitmapOr path, where SAOP is covered 
with a minimal number of partial indexes (likewise, previous version).

-- 
regards,
Andrei Lepikhov
Postgres Professional

Hi!

On Mon, Apr 1, 2024 at 9:38 AM Andrei Lepikhov
<a.lepikhov@postgrespro.ru> wrote:
> On 28/3/2024 16:54, Alexander Korotkov wrote:
> > The current patch has a boolean guc enable_or_transformation.
> > However, when we have just a few ORs to be transformated, then we
> > should get less performance gain from the transformation and higher
> > chances to lose a good bitmap scan plan from that.  When there is a
> > huge list of ORs to be transformed, then the performance gain is
> > greater and it is less likely we could lose a good bitmap scan plan.
> >
> > What do you think about introducing a GUC threshold value: the minimum
> > size of list to do OR-to-ANY transformation?
> > min_list_or_transformation or something.
> I labelled it or_transformation_limit (see in attachment). Feel free to
> rename it.
> It's important to note that the limiting GUC doesn't operate
> symmetrically for forward, OR -> SAOP, and backward SAOP -> OR
> operations. In the forward case, it functions as you've proposed.
> However, in the backward case, we only check whether the feature is
> enabled or not. This is due to our existing limitation,
> MAX_SAOP_ARRAY_SIZE, and the fact that we can't match the length of the
> original OR list with the sizes of the resulting SAOPs. For instance, a
> lengthy OR list with 100 elements can be transformed into 3 SAOPs, each
> with a size of around 30 elements.
> One aspect that requires attention is the potential inefficiency of our
> OR -> ANY transformation when we have a number of elements less than
> MAX_SAOP_ARRAY_SIZE. This is because we perform a reverse transformation
> ANY -> OR at the stage of generating bitmap scans. If the BitmapScan
> path dominates, we may have done unnecessary work. Is this an occurrence
> that we should address?
> But the concern above may just be a point of improvement later: We can
> add one more strategy to the optimizer: testing each array element as an
> OR clause; we can also provide a BitmapOr path, where SAOP is covered
> with a minimal number of partial indexes (likewise, previous version).

I've revised the patch.  Did some beautification, improvements for
documentation, commit messages etc.

I've pushed the 0001 patch without 0002.  I think 0001 is good by
itself given that there is the or_to_any_transform_limit GUC option.
The more similar OR clauses are here the more likely grouping them
into SOAP will be a win.  But I've changed the default value to 5.
This will make it less invasive and affect only queries with obvious
repeating patterns.  That also reduced the changes in the regression
tests expected outputs.

Regarding 0002, it seems questionable since it could cause a planning
slowdown for SAOP's with large arrays.  Also, it might reduce the win
of transformation made by 0001.  So, I think we should skip it for
now.

------
Regards,
Alexander Korotkov

On Mon, Apr 08, 2024 at 01:34:37AM +0300, Alexander Korotkov wrote:
> Hi!
> 
> On Mon, Apr 1, 2024 at 9:38 AM Andrei Lepikhov
> <a.lepikhov@postgrespro.ru> wrote:
> > On 28/3/2024 16:54, Alexander Korotkov wrote:
> > > The current patch has a boolean guc enable_or_transformation.
> > > However, when we have just a few ORs to be transformated, then we
> > > should get less performance gain from the transformation and higher
> > > chances to lose a good bitmap scan plan from that.  When there is a
> > > huge list of ORs to be transformed, then the performance gain is
> > > greater and it is less likely we could lose a good bitmap scan plan.
> > >
> > > What do you think about introducing a GUC threshold value: the minimum
> > > size of list to do OR-to-ANY transformation?
> > > min_list_or_transformation or something.
> > I labelled it or_transformation_limit (see in attachment). Feel free to
> > rename it.
> > It's important to note that the limiting GUC doesn't operate
> > symmetrically for forward, OR -> SAOP, and backward SAOP -> OR
> > operations. In the forward case, it functions as you've proposed.
> > However, in the backward case, we only check whether the feature is
> > enabled or not. This is due to our existing limitation,
> > MAX_SAOP_ARRAY_SIZE, and the fact that we can't match the length of the
> > original OR list with the sizes of the resulting SAOPs. For instance, a
> > lengthy OR list with 100 elements can be transformed into 3 SAOPs, each
> > with a size of around 30 elements.
> > One aspect that requires attention is the potential inefficiency of our
> > OR -> ANY transformation when we have a number of elements less than
> > MAX_SAOP_ARRAY_SIZE. This is because we perform a reverse transformation
> > ANY -> OR at the stage of generating bitmap scans. If the BitmapScan
> > path dominates, we may have done unnecessary work. Is this an occurrence
> > that we should address?
> > But the concern above may just be a point of improvement later: We can
> > add one more strategy to the optimizer: testing each array element as an
> > OR clause; we can also provide a BitmapOr path, where SAOP is covered
> > with a minimal number of partial indexes (likewise, previous version).
> 
> I've revised the patch.  Did some beautification, improvements for
> documentation, commit messages etc.
> 
> I've pushed the 0001 patch without 0002.  I think 0001 is good by
> itself given that there is the or_to_any_transform_limit GUC option.
> The more similar OR clauses are here the more likely grouping them
> into SOAP will be a win.  But I've changed the default value to 5.

The sample config file has the wrong default

+#or_to_any_transform_limit = 0

We had a patch to catch this kind of error, but it was closed (which IMO
was itself an error).

-- 
Justin