Hi, Andrei!
Thank you for your feedback.
On Wed, May 29, 2024 at 11:08 AM Andrei Lepikhov
<a.lepikhov@postgrespro.ru> wrote:
> On 5/27/24 19:41, Alexander Korotkov wrote:
> > On Tue, Apr 23, 2024 at 1:19 AM Alexander Korotkov <aekorotkov@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> While there are some particular use-cases by Jian He, I hope that
> >> above could give some rationale.
> >
> > I've assembled patches in this thread into one patchset.
> > 0001 The patch fixing asymmetry in setting EquivalenceClass.ec_sortref
> > by Andrei [1]. I've revised comments and wrote the commit message.
> > 0002 The patch for handling duplicates of SortGroupClause. I didn't
> > get the sense of Andrei implementation. It seems to care about
> > duplicate pointers in group clauses list. But the question is the
> > equal SortGroupClause's comprising different pointers. I think we
> > should group duplicate SortGroupClause's together as
> > preprocess_groupclause() used to do. Reimplemented patch to do so.
> > 0003 Rename PathKeyInfo to GroupByOrdering by Andres [3]. I only
> > revised comments and wrote the commit message.
> > 0004 Turn back preprocess_groupclause() for the reason I described upthread [4].
> >
> > Any thoughts?
> About 0001:
> Having overviewed it, I don't see any issues (but I'm the author),
> except grammatical ones - but I'm not a native to judge it.
> Also, the sentence 'turning GROUP BY clauses into pathkeys' is unclear
> to me. It may be better to write something like: 'building pathkeys by
> the list of grouping clauses'.
OK, thank you. I'll run once again for the grammar issues.
> 0002:
> The part under USE_ASSERT_CHECKING looks good to me. But the code in
> group_keys_reorder_by_pathkeys looks suspicious: of course, we do some
> doubtful work without any possible way to reproduce, but if we envision
> some duplicated elements in the group_clauses, we should avoid usage of
> the list_concat_unique_ptr.
As I understand Tom, there is a risk that clauses list may contain
multiple instances of equivalent SortGroupClause, not duplicate
pointers.
> What's more, why do you not exit from
> foreach_ptr immediately after SortGroupClause has been found? I think
> the new_group_clauses should be consistent with the new_group_pathkeys.
I wanted this to be consistent with preprocess_groupclause(), where
duplicate SortGroupClause'es are grouped together. Otherwise, we
could just delete redundant SortGroupClause'es.
> 0003:
> Looks good
>
> 0004:
> I was also thinking about reintroducing the preprocess_groupclause
> because with the re-arrangement of GROUP-BY clauses according to
> incoming pathkeys, it doesn't make sense to have a user-defined order—at
> least while cost_sort doesn't differ costs for alternative column orderings.
> So, I'm okay with the code. But why don't you use the same approach with
> foreach_ptr as before?
I restored the function as it was before 0452b461bc with minimal edits
to support the incremental sort. I think it would be more valuable to
keep the difference with pg16 code small rather than refactor to
simplify existing code.
------
Regards,
Alexander Korotkov