Mailing-List: contact dev-help@quickstep.incubator.apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: dev@quickstep.incubator.apache.org
From: jianqiao <git@git.apache.org>
To: dev@quickstep.incubator.apache.org
Reply-To: dev@quickstep.incubator.apache.org
References: <git-pr-174-incubator-quickstep@git.apache.org>
In-Reply-To: <git-pr-174-incubator-quickstep@git.apache.org>
Subject: [GitHub] incubator-quickstep pull request #174: Push down disjunctive predicates to f...
Content-Type: text/plain
Message-Id: <20170131164956.C6710DFD71@git1-us-west.apache.org>
Date: Tue, 31 Jan 2017 16:49:56 +0000 (UTC)
archived-at: Tue, 31 Jan 2017 16:50:19 -0000

Github user jianqiao commented on a diff in the pull request:

    https://github.com/apache/incubator-quickstep/pull/174#discussion_r98714161
  
    --- Diff: query_optimizer/PhysicalGenerator.cpp ---
    @@ -108,6 +109,7 @@ P::PhysicalPtr PhysicalGenerator::generateInitialPlan(
     P::PhysicalPtr PhysicalGenerator::optimizePlan() {
       std::vector<std::unique_ptr<Rule<P::Physical>>> rules;
       rules.emplace_back(new PruneColumns());
    +  rules.emplace_back(new PushDownLowCostDisjunctivePredicate());
    --- End diff --
    
    Oh I made a mistake that actually the `InjectFilterJoin` optimization will not generate unnecessary `Selection`s, but `PushDownLowCostDisjunctivePredicate` may generate two `Selection`s in a chain. Currently this is a not an issue since the `Selection`s for tables with cardinality around 100 are very light-weight. We may add a `FuseSelection` optimization later.


---
If your project is set up for it, you can reply to this email and have your
reply appear on GitHub as well. If your project does not have this feature
enabled and wishes so, or if the feature is enabled but not working, please
contact infrastructure at infrastructure@apache.org or file a JIRA ticket
with INFRA.
---