Re: slow IN() clause for many cases

From: Greg Stark <gsstark(at)mit(dot)edu>
To: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
Cc: andrew(at)supernews(dot)com, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: slow IN() clause for many cases
Date: 2005-10-15 21:37:53
Message-ID: 87mzlafolq.fsf@stark.xeocode.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> writes:

> It strikes me that now that we have the bitmap indexscan mechanism,
> it wouldn't be hard to do better. I'm thinking that IN should be
> converted to a ScalarArrayOpExpr, ie
>
> x = ANY (ARRAY[val1,val2,val3,val4,...])
>
> and then we could treat both OpExpr and ScalarArrayOpExpr as matching
> an index when the LHS is the index key and the operator is in the
> index's opclass. This wouldn't fit comfortably into a plain indexscan,
> but a bitmap indexscan has already got the mechanism for ORing together
> the results of several primitive indexscans (one per array element).
> You just do the scans and insert all the results into your output
> bitmap.

Would this mean it would be impossible to get a fast-start plan for an IN
expression though?

I would fear queries like

SELECT * from tab WHERE x IN (1,2,3) LIMIT 1

Which ought to be instantaneous would become potentially slow.

(Actually I'm more interested in cases where instead of LIMIT 1 it's the
client that will stop as soon as it finds the record it's really looking for.)

--
greg

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Tom Lane 2005-10-15 21:42:30 Re: slow IN() clause for many cases
Previous Message Darko Prenosil 2005-10-15 21:16:34 Re: drop if exists