Step #2: "[ORDER BY ...] LIMIT n" should not prevent EXISTS-to-IN
conversion, as long as
- the LIMIT clause doesn't have OFFSET
- the LIMIT is not "LIMIT 0".
Step 1: Removal of ORDER BY [LIMIT] from the subquery should be done
earlier and for broader class of subqueries.
The rewrite was done in Item_in_subselect::select_in_like_transformer(),
but this had problems:
- It didn't cover EXISTS subqueries
- It covered IN-subqueries, but was done after the semi-join transformation
was considered inapplicable, because ORDER BY was present.
Remaining issue:
- EXISTS->IN transformation happens before
check_and_do_in_subquery_rewrites() is called, so it is still prevented
by the present ORDER BY.
Condition can be pushed from the HAVING clause into the WHERE clause
if it depends only on the fields that are used in the GROUP BY list
or depends on the fields that are equal to grouping fields.
Aggregate functions can't be pushed down.
How the pushdown is performed on the example:
SELECT t1.a,MAX(t1.b)
FROM t1
GROUP BY t1.a
HAVING (t1.a>2) AND (MAX(c)>12);
=>
SELECT t1.a,MAX(t1.b)
FROM t1
WHERE (t1.a>2)
GROUP BY t1.a
HAVING (MAX(c)>12);
The implementation scheme:
1. Extract the most restrictive condition cond from the HAVING clause of
the select that depends only on the fields that are used in the GROUP BY
list of the select (directly or indirectly through equalities)
2. Save cond as a condition that can be pushed into the WHERE clause
of the select
3. Remove cond from the HAVING clause if it is possible
The optimization is implemented in the function
st_select_lex::pushdown_from_having_into_where().
New test file having_cond_pushdown.test is created.
