Tweak choose_bitmap_and() heuristics in the light of example provided in bug

#2075: consider an index redundant if any of its index conditions were already
used, rather than if all of them were.  Also, make the selectivity comparison
a bit fuzzy, so that very small differences in estimated selectivities don't
skew the results.

diff --git a/src/backend/optimizer/path/indxpath.c b/src/backend/optimizer/path/indxpath.c
index 2dbbd0bfbef9cf334a27a266675b32141f0138b5..68e4a9370ee1aeeb37e59ac8b6e4569709a152d7 100644 (file)
--- a/src/backend/optimizer/path/indxpath.c
+++ b/src/backend/optimizer/path/indxpath.c
@@ -9,7 +9,7 @@
  *
  *
  * IDENTIFICATION
- *       $PostgreSQL: pgsql/src/backend/optimizer/path/indxpath.c,v 1.191.2.2 2005/11/22 18:23:10 momjian Exp $
+ *       $PostgreSQL: pgsql/src/backend/optimizer/path/indxpath.c,v 1.191.2.3 2005/11/30 17:10:25 tgl Exp $
  *
  *-------------------------------------------------------------------------
  */
@@ -54,6 +54,7 @@ static List *find_usable_indexes(PlannerInfo *root, RelOptInfo *rel,
 static Path *choose_bitmap_and(PlannerInfo *root, RelOptInfo *rel, List *paths);
 static int     bitmap_path_comparator(const void *a, const void *b);
 static Cost bitmap_and_cost_est(PlannerInfo *root, RelOptInfo *rel, List *paths);
+static bool lists_intersect_ptr(List *list1, List *list2);
 static bool match_clause_to_indexcol(IndexOptInfo *index,
                                                 int indexcol, Oid opclass,
                                                 RestrictInfo *rinfo,
@@ -520,19 +521,27 @@ choose_bitmap_and(PlannerInfo *root, RelOptInfo *rel, List *paths)
         * In theory we should consider every nonempty subset of the given paths.
         * In practice that seems like overkill, given the crude nature of the
         * estimates, not to mention the possible effects of higher-level AND and
-        * OR clauses.  As a compromise, we sort the paths by selectivity. We
+        * OR clauses.  As a compromise, we sort the paths by selectivity.  We
         * always take the first, and sequentially add on paths that result in a
         * lower estimated cost.
         *
         * We also make some effort to detect directly redundant input paths, as
         * can happen if there are multiple possibly usable indexes.  For this we
         * look only at plain IndexPath inputs, not at sub-OR clauses. And we
-        * consider an index redundant if all its index conditions were already
+        * consider an index redundant if any of its index conditions were already
         * used by earlier indexes.  (We could use predicate_implied_by to have a
         * more intelligent, but much more expensive, check --- but in most cases
         * simple pointer equality should suffice, since after all the index
         * conditions are all coming from the same RestrictInfo lists.)
         *
+        * You might think the condition for redundancy should be "all index
+        * conditions already used", not "any", but this turns out to be wrong.
+        * For example, if we use an index on A, and then come to an index with
+        * conditions on A and B, the only way that the second index can be later
+        * in the selectivity-order sort is if the condition on B is completely
+        * non-selective.  In any case, we'd surely be drastically misestimating
+        * the selectivity if we count the same condition twice.
+        *
         * XXX is there any risk of throwing away a useful partial index here
         * because we don't explicitly look at indpred?  At least in simple cases,
         * the partial index will sort before competing non-partial indexes and so
@@ -570,7 +579,7 @@ choose_bitmap_and(PlannerInfo *root, RelOptInfo *rel, List *paths)
                if (IsA(newpath, IndexPath))
                {
                        newqual = ((IndexPath *) newpath)->indexclauses;
-                       if (list_difference_ptr(newqual, qualsofar) == NIL)
+                       if (lists_intersect_ptr(newqual, qualsofar))
                                continue;               /* redundant */
                }
 
@@ -605,19 +614,27 @@ bitmap_path_comparator(const void *a, const void *b)
        Cost            bcost;
        Selectivity aselec;
        Selectivity bselec;
+       Selectivity diff;
 
        cost_bitmap_tree_node(pa, &acost, &aselec);
        cost_bitmap_tree_node(pb, &bcost, &bselec);
 
-       if (aselec < bselec)
+       /*
+        * Since selectivities are often pretty crude, don't put blind faith
+        * in them; if the selectivities are within 1% of being the same, treat
+        * them as equal and sort by cost instead.
+        */
+       diff = aselec - bselec;
+       if (diff < -0.01)
                return -1;
-       if (aselec > bselec)
+       if (diff > 0.01)
                return 1;
-       /* if identical selectivity, sort by cost */
+
        if (acost < bcost)
                return -1;
        if (acost > bcost)
                return 1;
+
        return 0;
 }
 
@@ -644,6 +661,35 @@ bitmap_and_cost_est(PlannerInfo *root, RelOptInfo *rel, List *paths)
 }
 
 
+/*
+ * lists_intersect_ptr
+ *             Detect whether two lists have a nonempty intersection,
+ *             using pointer equality to compare members.
+ *
+ * This possibly should go into list.c, but it doesn't yet have any use
+ * except in choose_bitmap_and.
+ */
+static bool
+lists_intersect_ptr(List *list1, List *list2)
+{
+       ListCell   *cell1;
+
+       foreach(cell1, list1)
+       {
+               void   *datum1 = lfirst(cell1);
+               ListCell   *cell2;
+
+               foreach(cell2, list2)
+               {
+                       if (lfirst(cell2) == datum1)
+                               return true;
+               }
+       }
+
+       return false;
+}
+
+
 /****************************************************************************
  *                             ----  ROUTINES TO CHECK RESTRICTIONS  ----
  ****************************************************************************/