Re: Useless LEFT JOIN breaks MIN/MAX optimization

Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com> writes:

But that's also assuming that you're correct here about how to descend
through a JoinExpr, which I'm not quite sure whether is true. It's
also assuming that we should solve the problem here rather than in
some other part of the code e.g. the join removal code, and I'm not
sure about that either.

The actual problem here is that remove_useless_joins hasn't run yet.
It's called inside query_planner which happens only after we do
preprocess_minmax_aggregates.

So I think this patch is a dead end.  It's not possible for it to
correctly predict whether remove_useless_joins will remove the join,
short of repeating all that work which we surely don't want.
(I'm a bit surprised that it hasn't visibly broken existing test cases.)

To be honest, I was not completely sure about my decision at first and had no idea how to do it differently, so I submitted a request for "Advanced session feedback" to consider this patch.

It might be possible to move preprocess_minmax_aggregates to happen
after join removal, but I fear it'd require some pretty fundamental
rethinking of how it generates indexscan paths --- recursively
calling query_planner seems dubious.  (But maybe that'd work?
The modified query should no longer contain aggs, so we wouldn't
recurse again.)

I considered another approach using late optimization and ran into a problem where the planner could not find a partitioned table.

It was a long time ago to be frankly, but the problem there was that the planner stored this information at a higher level. I can try to finish this.

I attached a diff just in case.

preprocess_minmax_aggregates is pretty much of a hack anyway.
If you read the comments, it's just full of weird stuff that it
has to duplicate from other places, or things that magically work
because the relevant stuff isn't possible in this query, etc.
Maybe it's time to think about nuking it from orbit and doing a
fresh implementation in some other place that's a better fit.
I have no immediate ideas about what that should look like, other
than it'd be better if it happened after join removal.

I didn't consider this and I'll think about it. 

Thanks for the feedback!

Regards,
Alena Rybakina
Postgres Professional