David Rowley <dgrowle...@gmail.com> writes:
> On Thu, 30 Sept 2021 at 11:20, Tom Lane <t...@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
>> Hmm ... I think that actually, a correct statement of the semantic
>> restriction is
>> To be eligible for memoization, the inside of a join can use the
>> passed-in parameters *only* as direct arguments of hashable equality
>> operators.
> I'm not really sure if I follow your comment about the top-level qual
> operator. I'm not really sure why that has anything to do with it.
> Remember that we *never* do any hashing of any values from the inner
> side of the join. If we're doing a parameterized nested loop and say
> our parameter has the value of 1, the first time through we don't find
> any cached tuples, so we run the plan from the inner side of the
> nested loop join and cache all the tuples that we get from it. When
> the parameter changes, we check if the current value of the parameter
> has any tuples cached.
Right, and the point is that if you *do* get a hit, you are assuming
that the inner side would return the same values as it returned for
the previous hash-equal value. You are doing yourself no good by
thinking about simple cases like integers. Think about float8,
and ask yourself whether, if you cached a result for +0, that result
is still good for -0. In general we can only assume that for applications
of the hash equality operator itself (or members of its hash opfamily).
Anything involving a cast to text, for example, would fail on such a case.
> This allows us to memoize any join expression, not just equality
> expressions.
I am clearly failing to get through to you. Do I need to build
an example?
regards, tom lane
