[jira] [Created] (CALCITE-2624) Add a rule to copy a sort below a binary operator over the left or right input
Stamatis Zampetakis created CALCITE-2624:
Summary: Add a rule to copy a sort below a binary operator over the left or right input
Issue Type: Improvement
Affects Versions: 1.17.0
Reporter: Stamatis Zampetakis
Assignee: Julian Hyde
Fix For: 1.18.0
Currently, the only rule that allows a sort to traverse a binary operator is the SortJoinTransposeRule. The rule was introduced mainly to push limits in the case of left and right outer joins (see CALCITE-831).
I assume that the main reason that we don't have more rules is that sorts with limits and offsets cannot be pushed safely below many binary operators. However, in many cases, it is possible and beneficial for optimization purposes to just push the sort (without the limit and offset) below the binary operator. Since we do not know in advance if the binary operator preserves the sort we cannot remove (that is why I am saying copy and not transpose) the sort operator on top of the binary operator. The latter is not really a problem since the SortRemoveRule can detect such cases and remove the sort if it is redundant.
A few concrete examples where this optimization makes sense are outlined below:
* allow the sort to be later absorbed by an index scan and disappear from the plan (Sort + Tablescan => IndexScan with RelCollation);
* allow operators that require sorted inputs to be exploited more easily (e.g., merge join);
* allow the sort to be performed on a possibly smaller result (assuming that the physical binary operator that is going to be used preserves the order of left/right input and the top sort operator can be removed entirely).
I propose to add a new rule (e.g., SortCopyBelowBiRelRule, SortBiRelCopyBelowRule, SortBiRelTransposeRule) which allows a sort to be copied to the left or right of a BiRel operator (excluding the limit and offset attributes) if the respective input is not already sorted. For my use case, it would suffice to apply the rule only on joins and correlates but I don't see why not making it a bit more general from the beginning.
This message was sent by Atlassian JIRA