better make sure the sort order is totally specified; else we get burnt
by platform-specific behavior of qsort() with equal keys. Per buildfarm
results.
In particular, there was a mathematical tie between the two possible
nestloop-with-materialized-inner-scan plans for a join (ie, we computed
the same cost with either input on the inside), resulting in a roundoff
error driven choice, if the relations were both small enough to fit in
sort_mem. Add a small cost factor to ensure we prefer materializing the
smaller input. This changes several regression test plans, but with any
luck we will now have more stability across platforms.
a relation's number of blocks, rather than the possibly-obsolete value
in pg_class.relpages. Scale the value in pg_class.reltuples correspondingly
to arrive at a hopefully more accurate number of rows. When pg_class
contains 0/0, estimate a tuple width from the column datatypes and divide
that into current file size to estimate number of rows. This improved
methodology allows us to jettison the ancient hacks that put bogus default
values into pg_class when a table is first created. Also, per a suggestion
from Simon, make VACUUM (but not VACUUM FULL or ANALYZE) adjust the value
it puts into pg_class.reltuples to try to represent the mean tuple density
instead of the minimal density that actually prevails just after VACUUM.
These changes alter the plans selected for certain regression tests, so
update the expected files accordingly. (I removed join_1.out because
it's not clear if it still applies; we can add back any variant versions
as they are shown to be needed.)
subplan it starts with, as they may be needed at upper join levels.
See comments added to code for the non-obvious reason why. Per bug report
from Robert Creager.
constraints appearing in outer-join qualification clauses are restricted
as to when and where they can be pushed down. Add regression test
to catch future errors in this area.
necessarily following the JOIN syntax to develop the query plan. The old
behavior is still available by setting GUC variable JOIN_COLLAPSE_LIMIT
to 1. Also create a GUC variable FROM_COLLAPSE_LIMIT to control the
similar decision about when to collapse sub-SELECT lists into their parent
lists. (This behavior existed already, but the limit was always
GEQO_THRESHOLD/2; now it's separately adjustable.)
lists to join RTEs, attach a list of Vars and COALESCE expressions that will
replace the join's alias variables during planning. This simplifies
flatten_join_alias_vars while still making it easy to fix up varno references
when transforming the query tree. Add regression test cases for interactions
of subqueries with outer joins.
now has an RTE of its own, and references to its outputs now are Vars
referencing the JOIN RTE, rather than CASE-expressions. This allows
reverse-listing in ruleutils.c to use the correct alias easily, rather
than painfully reverse-engineering the alias namespace as it used to do.
Also, nested FULL JOINs work correctly, because the result of the inner
joins are simple Vars that the planner can cope with. This fixes a bug
reported a couple times now, notably by Tatsuo on 18-Nov-01. The alias
Vars are expanded into COALESCE expressions where needed at the very end
of planning, rather than during parsing.
Also, beginnings of support for showing plan qualifier expressions in
EXPLAIN. There are probably still cases that need work.
initdb forced due to change of stored-rule representation.
comparison does not consider paths different when they differ only in
uninteresting aspects of sort order. (We had a special case of this
consideration for indexscans already, but generalize it to apply to
ordered join paths too.) Be stricter about what is a canonical pathkey
to allow faster pathkey comparison. Cache canonical pathkeys and
dispersion stats for left and right sides of a RestrictInfo's clause,
to avoid repeated computation. Total speedup will depend on number of
tables in a query, but I see about 4x speedup of planning phase for
a sample seven-table query.
which is broken in some weird way that I don't understand. I think it
may be exposing a bug in the new psql --- for one thing, I get different
results when I run psql by hand than the regress script gets. What
the heck???
Tom Lane
Peter Eisentraut
Bruce Momjian
Thomas G. Lockhart