db-derby-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Rick Hillegas <Richard.Hille...@Sun.COM>
Subject Re: jira question
Date Wed, 03 Aug 2005 19:36:11 GMT
I don't anticipate any significant time savings by scaling back the kind 
of expressions we support.  In any event, sarg-matching of 
indexableExpressions should not involve text comparisons. I imagine it 
would involve normalizing the parse trees and comparing the normalized 
subgraphs.

If Mike is right and generated columns aren't useful unless the 
optimizer can turn indexableExpressions into sargs, then the choice 
between generated columns and  expression indexes seems largely 
religious to me. I am leaning toward expression indexes because they are 
slightly simpler for the user: she only has to declare an index, not 
declare a special column and then declare an index.

By the way, this is a very lively, fruitful, and clarifying email 
thread. Thanks especially to Dan, Mike, Satheesh, and Manish.

Cheers,
-Rick

Satheesh Bandaram wrote:

>
> Manish Khettry wrote:
>
>>I think using arbitrarily complex expressions to create indexes may be
>>overkill. Dan's idea of restricting expression indexes on function
>>calls on a single base column (actually one _or more_ base columns
>>shouldn't be that much harder) is probably better.
>>  
>>
> While it may be OK to start with a single base column, I think one or 
> more base column references would be good to support. Useful for 
> functional indexes on *area*, for example. Or total compensation, 
> which may involve base salary, bonus, commissions etc.
>
>>Isn't storing the expression text for a generated column also
>>problematic? I can think of a few other things
>>-- The expression will also have to be compiled and evaluated for DDL
>>like alter table (drop column)  possibly others.
>>  
>>
> Doesn't Derby already support evaluating an expression at DDL time for 
> a default clause? Alter table add column evaluates this default 
> expression at the DDL time.
>
>>-- We'll need a good way to check if two expressions are the same.
>>Obviously a textual comparison may not work. Making sure that two
>>expr's are the same is not trivial if we want to do it right-- say
>>(x+y) > 10 is the same as 10 < (y+x).
>>  
>>
> Right... Common expression detection needs to be added. Would also be 
> useful to eliminate multiple evaluations of any common (sub-)expressions.
>
> Satheesh
>
>>Manish
>>
>>On 8/3/05, Rick Hillegas <Richard.Hillegas@sun.com> wrote:
>>  
>>
>>>Thanks, Jeff. I agree. Recompiling these expressions can occur when we
>>>compile the triggering SELECT/UPDATE/INSERT statements. Compiling a
>>>SELECT/UPDATE/INSERT is a relatively heavyweight operation and I don't
>>>think anyone will notice a little extra time spent recompiling these
>>>expressions.
>>>
>>>Cheers,
>>>-Rick
>>>
>>>Jeffrey Lichtman wrote:
>>>
>>>    
>>>
>>>>>The expression used for the generated column must be stored in the
>>>>>data dictionary. Does derby serialize expressions? I was looking
>>>>>around in the classes in impl/sq/compile (ValueNode and such) and
>>>>>these classes don't seem to implement Formatable.
>>>>>        
>>>>>
>>>>It would be better to store the expressions as text, and to parse and
>>>>bind them when needed. I learned the hard way while working on the
>>>>internals of other database systems that storing internal data
>>>>structures in the data dictionary causes trouble when the structures
>>>>change. Also, it's useful for users to be able to look at the text of
>>>>their DDL statements.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>                       -        Jeff Lichtman
>>>>                                swazoo@rcn.com
>>>>                                Check out Swazoo Koolak's Web Jukebox at
>>>>                                http://swazoo.com/
>>>>      
>>>>
>>>
>>>    
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>>  
>>



Mime
View raw message