Adding upstream version 14.5.upstream/14.5upstream

Signed-off-by: Daniel Baumann <daniel.baumann@progress-linux.org>

1 files changed, 116 insertions, 0 deletions

diff --git a/src/backend/statistics/README.dependencies b/src/backend/statistics/README.dependencies
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..6c446bd
--- /dev/null
+++ b/src/backend/statistics/README.dependencies
@@ -0,0 +1,116 @@
+Soft functional dependencies
+============================
+
+Functional dependencies are a concept well described in relational theory,
+particularly in the definition of normalization and "normal forms". Wikipedia
+has a nice definition of a functional dependency [1]:
+
+    In a given table, an attribute Y is said to have a functional dependency
+    on a set of attributes X (written X -> Y) if and only if each X value is
+    associated with precisely one Y value. For example, in an "Employee"
+    table that includes the attributes "Employee ID" and "Employee Date of
+    Birth", the functional dependency
+
+        {Employee ID} -> {Employee Date of Birth}
+
+    would hold. It follows from the previous two sentences that each
+    {Employee ID} is associated with precisely one {Employee Date of Birth}.
+
+    [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Functional_dependency
+
+In practical terms, functional dependencies mean that a value in one column
+determines values in some other column. Consider for example this trivial
+table with two integer columns:
+
+    CREATE TABLE t (a INT, b INT)
+        AS SELECT i, i/10 FROM generate_series(1,100000) s(i);
+
+Clearly, knowledge of the value in column 'a' is sufficient to determine the
+value in column 'b', as it's simply (a/10). A more practical example may be
+addresses, where the knowledge of a ZIP code (usually) determines city. Larger
+cities may have multiple ZIP codes, so the dependency can't be reversed.
+
+Many datasets might be normalized not to contain such dependencies, but often
+it's not practical for various reasons. In some cases, it's actually a conscious
+design choice to model the dataset in a denormalized way, either because of
+performance or to make querying easier.
+
+
+Soft dependencies
+-----------------
+
+Real-world data sets often contain data errors, either because of data entry
+mistakes (user mistyping the ZIP code) or perhaps issues in generating the
+data (e.g. a ZIP code mistakenly assigned to two cities in different states).
+
+A strict implementation would either ignore dependencies in such cases,
+rendering the approach mostly useless even for slightly noisy data sets, or
+result in sudden changes in behavior depending on minor differences between
+samples provided to ANALYZE.
+
+For this reason, extended statistics implement "soft" functional dependencies,
+associating each functional dependency with a degree of validity (a number
+between 0 and 1). This degree is then used to combine selectivities in a
+smooth manner.
+
+
+Mining dependencies (ANALYZE)
+-----------------------------
+
+The current algorithm is fairly simple - generate all possible functional
+dependencies, and for each one count the number of rows consistent with it.
+Then use the fraction of rows (supporting/total) as the degree.
+
+To count the rows consistent with the dependency (a => b):
+
+ (a) Sort the data lexicographically, i.e. first by 'a' then 'b'.
+
+ (b) For each group of rows with the same 'a' value, count the number of
+     distinct values in 'b'.
+
+ (c) If there's a single distinct value in 'b', the rows are consistent with
+     the functional dependency, otherwise they contradict it.
+
+
+Clause reduction (planner/optimizer)
+------------------------------------
+
+Applying the functional dependencies is fairly simple: given a list of
+equality clauses, we compute selectivities of each clause and then use the
+degree to combine them using this formula
+
+    P(a=?,b=?) = P(a=?) * (d + (1-d) * P(b=?))
+
+Where 'd' is the degree of functional dependency (a => b).
+
+With more than two equality clauses, this process happens recursively. For
+example for (a,b,c) we first use (a,b => c) to break the computation into
+
+    P(a=?,b=?,c=?) = P(a=?,b=?) * (e + (1-e) * P(c=?))
+
+where 'e' is the degree of functional dependency (a,b => c); then we can
+apply (a=>b) the same way on P(a=?,b=?).
+
+
+Consistency of clauses
+----------------------
+
+Functional dependencies only express general dependencies between columns,
+without referencing particular values. This assumes that the equality clauses
+are in fact consistent with the functional dependency, i.e. that given a
+dependency (a=>b), the value in (b=?) clause is the value determined by (a=?).
+If that's not the case, the clauses are "inconsistent" with the functional
+dependency and the result will be over-estimation.
+
+This may happen, for example, when using conditions on the ZIP code and city
+name with mismatching values (ZIP code for a different city), etc. In such a
+case, the result set will be empty, but we'll estimate the selectivity using
+the ZIP code condition.
+
+In this case, the default estimation based on AVIA principle happens to work
+better, but mostly by chance.
+
+This issue is the price for the simplicity of functional dependencies. If the
+application frequently constructs queries with clauses inconsistent with
+functional dependencies present in the data, the best solution is not to
+use functional dependencies, but one of the more complex types of statistics.