Re: (PATCH) Adding CORRESPONDING to Set Operations

From: Kerem Kat <keremkat(at)gmail(dot)com>
To: Thom Brown <thom(at)linux(dot)com>
Cc: Erik Rijkers <er(at)xs4all(dot)nl>, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: (PATCH) Adding CORRESPONDING to Set Operations
Date: 2011-11-14 11:29:05
Message-ID: CAJZSWkXZeCncG-kd4BG12ArzrQze-vvnjRxOt2wqXjicLsqSpg@mail.gmail.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

> This explain plan doesn't look right to me:
>
> test=# explain select a,b,c from one intersect corresponding by (a,c)
> select a,b,c from two;
>                                   QUERY PLAN
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>  HashSetOp Intersect  (cost=0.00..117.00 rows=200 width=8)
>   ->  Append  (cost=0.00..97.60 rows=3880 width=8)
>         ->  Subquery Scan on "*SELECT* 3"  (cost=0.00..48.80 rows=1940 width=8)
>               ->  Seq Scan on one  (cost=0.00..29.40 rows=1940 width=8)
>         ->  Subquery Scan on "*SELECT* 4"  (cost=0.00..48.80 rows=1940 width=8)
>               ->  Seq Scan on two  (cost=0.00..29.40 rows=1940 width=8)
> (6 rows)

In the current implementation,

select a,b,c from one intersect corresponding by (a,c) select a,b,c from two;

is translated to equivalent

select a, c from (select a,b,c from one)
intersect
select a, c from (select a,b,c from two);

Methinks that's the reason for this explain output.

Corresponding is currently implemented in the parse/analyze phase. If
it were to be implemented in the planning phase, explain output would
likely be as you expect it to be.

> If I do the same thing without the "corresponding...":
>
> test=# explain select a,b,c from one intersect select a,b,c from two;
>                                    QUERY PLAN
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>  HashSetOp Intersect  (cost=0.00..126.70 rows=200 width=12)
>   ->  Append  (cost=0.00..97.60 rows=3880 width=12)
>         ->  Subquery Scan on "*SELECT* 1"  (cost=0.00..48.80
> rows=1940 width=12)
>               ->  Seq Scan on one  (cost=0.00..29.40 rows=1940 width=12)
>         ->  Subquery Scan on "*SELECT* 2"  (cost=0.00..48.80
> rows=1940 width=12)
>               ->  Seq Scan on two  (cost=0.00..29.40 rows=1940 width=12)
> (6 rows)
>
> So it looks like it's now seeing the two tables as the 3rd and 4th
> tables, even though there are only 2 tables in total.
>
> --
> Thom Brown
> Twitter: @darkixion
> IRC (freenode): dark_ixion
> Registered Linux user: #516935
>
> EnterpriseDB UK: http://www.enterprisedb.com
> The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
>

Regards,

Kerem KAT

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Shigeru Hanada 2011-11-14 12:53:55 Re: FDW system columns
Previous Message Thom Brown 2011-11-14 10:56:44 Re: (PATCH) Adding CORRESPONDING to Set Operations