| Age | Commit message (Collapse) | Author |
|---|
|
Backpatch-through: 10
|
|
We can revert the code changes of commit b5febc1d1 now, because
commit 9a3ddeb51 installed a real solution for the difficulty
that b5febc1d1 just dodged, namely that the planner might pick
the wrong one of several index columns nominally containing the
same value. It only matters which one we pick if we pick one
that's not returnable, and that mistake is now foreclosed.
Although both of the aforementioned commits were back-patched,
I don't feel a need to take any risk by back-patching this one.
The cases that it improves are very corner-ish.
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/3179992.1641150853@sss.pgh.pa.us
|
|
Memoize would always use the hash equality operator for the cache key
types to determine if the current set of parameters were the same as some
previously cached set. Certain types such as floating points where -0.0
and +0.0 differ in their binary representation but are classed as equal by
the hash equality operator may cause problems as unless the join uses the
same operator it's possible that whichever join operator is being used
would be able to distinguish the two values. In which case we may
accidentally return in the incorrect rows out of the cache.
To fix this here we add a binary mode to Memoize to allow it to the
current set of parameters to previously cached values by comparing
bit-by-bit rather than logically using the hash equality operator. This
binary mode is always used for LATERAL joins and it's used for normal
joins when any of the join operators are not hashable.
Reported-by: Tom Lane
Author: David Rowley
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/3004308.1632952496@sss.pgh.pa.us
Backpatch-through: 14, where Memoize was added
|
|
In v14, because we don't have a field in RestrictInfo to cache both the
left and right type's hash equality operator, we just restrict the scope
of Memoize to only when the left and right types of a RestrictInfo are the
same.
In master we add another field to RestrictInfo and cache both hash
equality operators.
Reported-by: Jaime Casanova
Author: David Rowley
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/20210929185544.GB24346%40ahch-to
Backpatch-through: 14
|
|
Author: Amit Langote
Backpatch-through: 13
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/CA%2BHiwqGQNbtamQ_9DU3osR1XiWR4wxWFZurPmN6zgbdSZDeWmw%40mail.gmail.com
|
|
Up to now the size of a query's rangetable has been limited by the
constants INNER_VAR et al, which mustn't be equal to any real
rangetable index. 65000 doubtless seemed like enough for anybody,
and it still is orders of magnitude larger than the number of joins
we can realistically handle. However, we need a rangetable entry
for each child partition that is (or might be) processed by a query.
Queries with a few thousand partitions are getting more realistic,
so that the day when that limit becomes a problem is in sight,
even if it's not here yet. Hence, let's raise the limit.
Rather than just increase the values of INNER_VAR et al, this patch
adopts the approach of making them small negative values, so that
rangetables could theoretically become as long as INT_MAX.
The bulk of the patch is concerned with changing Var.varno and some
related variables from "Index" (unsigned int) to plain "int". This
is basically cosmetic, with little actual effect other than to help
debuggers print their values nicely. As such, I've only bothered
with changing places that could actually see INNER_VAR et al, which
the parser and most of the planner don't. We do have to be careful
in places that are performing less/greater comparisons on varnos,
but there are very few such places, other than the IS_SPECIAL_VARNO
macro itself.
A notable side effect of this patch is that while it used to be
possible to add INNER_VAR et al to a Bitmapset, that will now
draw an error. I don't see any likelihood that it wouldn't be a
bug to include these fake varnos in a bitmapset of real varnos,
so I think this is all to the good.
Although this touches outfuncs/readfuncs, I don't think a catversion
bump is required, since stored rules would never contain Vars
with these fake varnos.
Andrey Lepikhov and Tom Lane, after a suggestion by Peter Eisentraut
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/43c7f2f5-1e27-27aa-8c65-c91859d15190@postgrespro.ru
|
|
This makes the structure of all JoinPath-derived nodes the same,
independent of whether they have additional fields.
Discussion: https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/flat/c1097590-a6a4-486a-64b1-e1f9cc0533ce@enterprisedb.com
|
|
959d00e9d added the ability to make use of an Append node instead of a
MergeAppend when we wanted to perform a scan of a partitioned table and
the required sort order was the same as the partitioned keys and the
partitioned table was defined in such a way that earlier partitions were
guaranteed to only contain lower-order values than later partitions.
However, previously we didn't allow these ordered partition scans for
LIST partitioned table when there were any partitions that allowed
multiple Datums. This was a very cheap check to make and we could likely
have done a little better by checking if there were interleaved
partitions, but at the time we didn't have visibility about which
partitions were pruned, so we still may have disallowed cases where all
interleaved partitions were pruned.
Since 475dbd0b7, we now have knowledge of pruned partitions, we can do a
much better job inside partitions_are_ordered().
Here we pass which partitions survived partition pruning into
partitions_are_ordered() and, for LIST partitioning, have it check to see
if any live partitions exist that are also in the new "interleaved_parts"
field defined in PartitionBoundInfo.
For RANGE partitioning we can relax the code which caused the partitions
to be unordered if a DEFAULT partition existed. Since we now know which
partitions were pruned, partitions_are_ordered() now returns true when the
DEFAULT partition was pruned.
Reviewed-by: Amit Langote, Zhihong Yu
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/CAApHDvrdoN_sXU52i=QDXe2k3WAo=EVry29r2+Tq2WYcn2xhEA@mail.gmail.com
|
|
For partitioned tables with large numbers of partitions where queries are
able to prune all but a very small number of partitions, the time spent in
the planner looping over RelOptInfo.part_rels checking for non-NULL
RelOptInfos could become a large portion of the overall planning time.
Here we add a Bitmapset that records the non-pruned partitions. This
allows us to more efficiently skip the pruned partitions by looping over
the Bitmapset.
This will cause a very slight slow down in cases where no or not many
partitions could be pruned, however, those cases are already slow to plan
anyway and the overhead of looping over the Bitmapset would be
unmeasurable when compared with the other tasks such as path creation for
a large number of partitions.
Reviewed-by: Amit Langote, Zhihong Yu
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/CAApHDvqnPx6JnUuPwaf5ao38zczrAb9mxt9gj4U1EKFfd4AqLA@mail.gmail.com
|
|
The point of introducing the hash_mem_multiplier GUC was to let users
reproduce the old behavior of hash aggregation, i.e. that it could use
more than work_mem at need. However, the implementation failed to get
the job done on Win64, where work_mem is clamped to 2GB to protect
various places that calculate memory sizes using "long int". As
written, the same clamp was applied to hash_mem. This resulted in
severe performance regressions for queries requiring a bit more than
2GB for hash aggregation, as they now spill to disk and there's no
way to stop that.
Getting rid of the work_mem restriction seems like a good idea, but
it's a big job and could not conceivably be back-patched. However,
there's only a fairly small number of places that are concerned with
the hash_mem value, and it turns out to be possible to remove the
restriction there without too much code churn or any ABI breaks.
So, let's do that for now to fix the regression, and leave the
larger task for another day.
This patch does introduce a bit more infrastructure that should help
with the larger task, namely pg_bitutils.h support for working with
size_t values.
Per gripe from Laurent Hasson. Back-patch to v13 where the
behavior change came in.
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/997817.1627074924@sss.pgh.pa.us
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/MN2PR15MB25601E80A9B6D1BA6F592B1985E39@MN2PR15MB2560.namprd15.prod.outlook.com
|
|
"Result Cache" was never a great name for this node, but nobody managed
to come up with another name that anyone liked enough. That was until
David Johnston mentioned "Node Memoization", which Tom Lane revised to
just "Memoize". People seem to like "Memoize", so let's do the rename.
Reviewed-by: Justin Pryzby
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/20210708165145.GG1176@momjian.us
Backpatch-through: 14, where Result Cache was introduced
|
|
Author: James Coleman
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/CAAaqYe8f8ENA0i1PdBtUNWDd2sxHSMgscNYbjhaXMuAdfBrZcg@mail.gmail.com
|
|
Code added in 9e215378d to disable building of Result Cache paths when
not all join conditions are part of the parameterization of a unique
join failed to first check if the inner path's param_info was set before
checking the param_info's ppi_clauses.
Add a check for NULL values here and just bail on trying to build the
path if param_info is NULL. lateral_vars are not considered when
deciding if the join is unique, so we're not missing out on doing the
optimization when there are lateral_vars and no param_info.
Reported-by: Coverity, via Tom Lane
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/457998.1621779290@sss.pgh.pa.us
|
|
When the planner considered using a Result Cache node to cache results
from the inner side of a Nested Loop Join, it failed to consider that the
inner path's parameterization may not be the entire join condition. If
the join was marked as inner_unique then we may accidentally put the cache
in singlerow mode. This meant that entries would be marked as complete
after caching the first row. That was wrong as if only part of the join
condition was parameterized then the uniqueness of the unique join was not
guaranteed at the Result Cache's level. The uniqueness is only guaranteed
after Nested Loop applies the join filter. If subsequent rows were found,
this would lead to:
ERROR: cache entry already complete
This could have been fixed by only putting the cache in singlerow mode if
the entire join condition was parameterized. However, Nested Loop will
only read its inner side so far as the first matching row when the join is
unique, so that might mean we never get an opportunity to mark cache
entries as complete. Since non-complete cache entries are useless for
subsequent lookups, we just don't bother considering a Result Cache path
in this case.
In passing, remove the XXX comment that claimed the above ERROR might be
better suited to be an Assert. After there being an actual case which
triggered it, it seems better to keep it an ERROR.
Reported-by: David Christensen
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/CAOxo6X+dy-V58iEPFgst8ahPKEU+38NZzUuc+a7wDBZd4TrHMQ@mail.gmail.com
|
|
|
|
I didn't particularly like this function name, as it fails to
express what's going on. Also, returning the sort expression
alone isn't too helpful --- typically, a caller would also
need some other fields of the EquivalenceMember. But the
sole caller really only needs a bool result, so let's make
it "bool relation_can_be_sorted_early()".
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/91f3ec99-85a4-fa55-ea74-33f85a5c651f@swarm64.com
|
|
An oversight introduced by the incremental-sort patches caused
"could not find pathkey item to sort" errors in some situations
where a sort key involves an aggregate or window function.
The basic problem here is that find_em_expr_usable_for_sorting_rel
isn't properly modeling what prepare_sort_from_pathkeys will do
later. Rather than hoping we can keep those functions in sync,
let's refactor so that they actually share the code for
identifying a suitable sort expression.
With this refactoring, tlist.c's tlist_member_ignore_relabel
is unused. I removed it in HEAD but left it in place in v13,
in case any extensions are using it.
Per report from Luc Vlaming. Back-patch to v13 where the
problem arose.
James Coleman and Tom Lane
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/91f3ec99-85a4-fa55-ea74-33f85a5c651f@swarm64.com
|
|
That field went away in commit edca44b15, but it seems that
commit 45be99f8c re-introduced some comments mentioning it.
Noted by James Coleman, though this isn't exactly his
proposed new wording. Also thanks to Justin Pryzby for
software archaeology.
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/CAAaqYe8fxZjq3na+XkNx4C78gDqykH-7dbnzygm9Qa9nuDTePg@mail.gmail.com
|
|
ScalarArrayOpExprs with "useOr=true" and a set of Consts on the righthand
side have traditionally been evaluated by using a linear search over the
array. When these arrays contain large numbers of elements then this
linear search could become a significant part of execution time.
Here we add a new method of evaluating ScalarArrayOpExpr expressions to
allow them to be evaluated by first building a hash table containing each
element, then on subsequent evaluations, we just probe that hash table to
determine if there is a match.
The planner is in charge of determining when this optimization is possible
and it enables it by setting hashfuncid in the ScalarArrayOpExpr. The
executor will only perform the hash table evaluation when the hashfuncid
is set.
This means that not all cases are optimized. For example CHECK constraints
containing an IN clause won't go through the planner, so won't get the
hashfuncid set. We could maybe do something about that at some later
date. The reason we're not doing it now is from fear that we may slow
down cases where the expression is evaluated only once. Those cases can
be common, for example, a single row INSERT to a table with a CHECK
constraint containing an IN clause.
In the planner, we enable this when there are suitable hash functions for
the ScalarArrayOpExpr's operator and only when there is at least
MIN_ARRAY_SIZE_FOR_HASHED_SAOP elements in the array. The threshold is
currently set to 9.
Author: James Coleman, David Rowley
Reviewed-by: David Rowley, Tomas Vondra, Heikki Linnakangas
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/CAAaqYe8x62+=wn0zvNKCj55tPpg-JBHzhZFFc6ANovdqFw7-dA@mail.gmail.com
|
|
Here we add a new executor node type named "Result Cache". The planner
can include this node type in the plan to have the executor cache the
results from the inner side of parameterized nested loop joins. This
allows caching of tuples for sets of parameters so that in the event that
the node sees the same parameter values again, it can just return the
cached tuples instead of rescanning the inner side of the join all over
again. Internally, result cache uses a hash table in order to quickly
find tuples that have been previously cached.
For certain data sets, this can significantly improve the performance of
joins. The best cases for using this new node type are for join problems
where a large portion of the tuples from the inner side of the join have
no join partner on the outer side of the join. In such cases, hash join
would have to hash values that are never looked up, thus bloating the hash
table and possibly causing it to multi-batch. Merge joins would have to
skip over all of the unmatched rows. If we use a nested loop join with a
result cache, then we only cache tuples that have at least one join
partner on the outer side of the join. The benefits of using a
parameterized nested loop with a result cache increase when there are
fewer distinct values being looked up and the number of lookups of each
value is large. Also, hash probes to lookup the cache can be much faster
than the hash probe in a hash join as it's common that the result cache's
hash table is much smaller than the hash join's due to result cache only
caching useful tuples rather than all tuples from the inner side of the
join. This variation in hash probe performance is more significant when
the hash join's hash table no longer fits into the CPU's L3 cache, but the
result cache's hash table does. The apparent "random" access of hash
buckets with each hash probe can cause a poor L3 cache hit ratio for large
hash tables. Smaller hash tables generally perform better.
The hash table used for the cache limits itself to not exceeding work_mem
* hash_mem_multiplier in size. We maintain a dlist of keys for this cache
and when we're adding new tuples and realize we've exceeded the memory
budget, we evict cache entries starting with the least recently used ones
until we have enough memory to add the new tuples to the cache.
For parameterized nested loop joins, we now consider using one of these
result cache nodes in between the nested loop node and its inner node. We
determine when this might be useful based on cost, which is primarily
driven off of what the expected cache hit ratio will be. Estimating the
cache hit ratio relies on having good distinct estimates on the nested
loop's parameters.
For now, the planner will only consider using a result cache for
parameterized nested loop joins. This works for both normal joins and
also for LATERAL type joins to subqueries. It is possible to use this new
node for other uses in the future. For example, to cache results from
correlated subqueries. However, that's not done here due to some
difficulties obtaining a distinct estimation on the outer plan to
calculate the estimated cache hit ratio. Currently we plan the inner plan
before planning the outer plan so there is no good way to know if a result
cache would be useful or not since we can't estimate the number of times
the subplan will be called until the outer plan is generated.
The functionality being added here is newly introducing a dependency on
the return value of estimate_num_groups() during the join search.
Previously, during the join search, we only ever needed to perform
selectivity estimations. With this commit, we need to use
estimate_num_groups() in order to estimate what the hit ratio on the
result cache will be. In simple terms, if we expect 10 distinct values
and we expect 1000 outer rows, then we'll estimate the hit ratio to be
99%. Since cache hits are very cheap compared to scanning the underlying
nodes on the inner side of the nested loop join, then this will
significantly reduce the planner's cost for the join. However, it's
fairly easy to see here that things will go bad when estimate_num_groups()
incorrectly returns a value that's significantly lower than the actual
number of distinct values. If this happens then that may cause us to make
use of a nested loop join with a result cache instead of some other join
type, such as a merge or hash join. Our distinct estimations have been
known to be a source of trouble in the past, so the extra reliance on them
here could cause the planner to choose slower plans than it did previous
to having this feature. Distinct estimations are also fairly hard to
estimate accurately when several tables have been joined already or when a
WHERE clause filters out a set of values that are correlated to the
expressions we're estimating the number of distinct value for.
For now, the costing we perform during query planning for result caches
does put quite a bit of faith in the distinct estimations being accurate.
When these are accurate then we should generally see faster execution
times for plans containing a result cache. However, in the real world, we
may find that we need to either change the costings to put less trust in
the distinct estimations being accurate or perhaps even disable this
feature by default. There's always an element of risk when we teach the
query planner to do new tricks that it decides to use that new trick at
the wrong time and causes a regression. Users may opt to get the old
behavior by turning the feature off using the enable_resultcache GUC.
Currently, this is enabled by default. It remains to be seen if we'll
maintain that setting for the release.
Additionally, the name "Result Cache" is the best name I could think of
for this new node at the time I started writing the patch. Nobody seems
to strongly dislike the name. A few people did suggest other names but no
other name seemed to dominate in the brief discussion that there was about
names. Let's allow the beta period to see if the current name pleases
enough people. If there's some consensus on a better name, then we can
change it before the release. Please see the 2nd discussion link below
for the discussion on the "Result Cache" name.
Author: David Rowley
Reviewed-by: Andy Fan, Justin Pryzby, Zhihong Yu, Hou Zhijie
Tested-By: Konstantin Knizhnik
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/CAApHDvrPcQyQdWERGYWx8J%2B2DLUNgXu%2BfOSbQ1UscxrunyXyrQ%40mail.gmail.com
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/CAApHDvq=yQXr5kqhRviT2RhNKwToaWr9JAN5t+5_PzhuRJ3wvg@mail.gmail.com
|
|
This removes "Add Result Cache executor node". It seems that something
weird is going on with the tracking of cache hits and misses as
highlighted by many buildfarm animals. It's not yet clear what the
problem is as other parts of the plan indicate that the cache did work
correctly, it's just the hits and misses that were being reported as 0.
This is especially a bad time to have the buildfarm so broken, so
reverting before too many more animals go red.
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/CAApHDvq_hydhfovm4=izgWs+C5HqEeRScjMbOgbpC-jRAeK3Yw@mail.gmail.com
|
|
Here we add a new executor node type named "Result Cache". The planner
can include this node type in the plan to have the executor cache the
results from the inner side of parameterized nested loop joins. This
allows caching of tuples for sets of parameters so that in the event that
the node sees the same parameter values again, it can just return the
cached tuples instead of rescanning the inner side of the join all over
again. Internally, result cache uses a hash table in order to quickly
find tuples that have been previously cached.
For certain data sets, this can significantly improve the performance of
joins. The best cases for using this new node type are for join problems
where a large portion of the tuples from the inner side of the join have
no join partner on the outer side of the join. In such cases, hash join
would have to hash values that are never looked up, thus bloating the hash
table and possibly causing it to multi-batch. Merge joins would have to
skip over all of the unmatched rows. If we use a nested loop join with a
result cache, then we only cache tuples that have at least one join
partner on the outer side of the join. The benefits of using a
parameterized nested loop with a result cache increase when there are
fewer distinct values being looked up and the number of lookups of each
value is large. Also, hash probes to lookup the cache can be much faster
than the hash probe in a hash join as it's common that the result cache's
hash table is much smaller than the hash join's due to result cache only
caching useful tuples rather than all tuples from the inner side of the
join. This variation in hash probe performance is more significant when
the hash join's hash table no longer fits into the CPU's L3 cache, but the
result cache's hash table does. The apparent "random" access of hash
buckets with each hash probe can cause a poor L3 cache hit ratio for large
hash tables. Smaller hash tables generally perform better.
The hash table used for the cache limits itself to not exceeding work_mem
* hash_mem_multiplier in size. We maintain a dlist of keys for this cache
and when we're adding new tuples and realize we've exceeded the memory
budget, we evict cache entries starting with the least recently used ones
until we have enough memory to add the new tuples to the cache.
For parameterized nested loop joins, we now consider using one of these
result cache nodes in between the nested loop node and its inner node. We
determine when this might be useful based on cost, which is primarily
driven off of what the expected cache hit ratio will be. Estimating the
cache hit ratio relies on having good distinct estimates on the nested
loop's parameters.
For now, the planner will only consider using a result cache for
parameterized nested loop joins. This works for both normal joins and
also for LATERAL type joins to subqueries. It is possible to use this new
node for other uses in the future. For example, to cache results from
correlated subqueries. However, that's not done here due to some
difficulties obtaining a distinct estimation on the outer plan to
calculate the estimated cache hit ratio. Currently we plan the inner plan
before planning the outer plan so there is no good way to know if a result
cache would be useful or not since we can't estimate the number of times
the subplan will be called until the outer plan is generated.
The functionality being added here is newly introducing a dependency on
the return value of estimate_num_groups() during the join search.
Previously, during the join search, we only ever needed to perform
selectivity estimations. With this commit, we need to use
estimate_num_groups() in order to estimate what the hit ratio on the
result cache will be. In simple terms, if we expect 10 distinct values
and we expect 1000 outer rows, then we'll estimate the hit ratio to be
99%. Since cache hits are very cheap compared to scanning the underlying
nodes on the inner side of the nested loop join, then this will
significantly reduce the planner's cost for the join. However, it's
fairly easy to see here that things will go bad when estimate_num_groups()
incorrectly returns a value that's significantly lower than the actual
number of distinct values. If this happens then that may cause us to make
use of a nested loop join with a result cache instead of some other join
type, such as a merge or hash join. Our distinct estimations have been
known to be a source of trouble in the past, so the extra reliance on them
here could cause the planner to choose slower plans than it did previous
to having this feature. Distinct estimations are also fairly hard to
estimate accurately when several tables have been joined already or when a
WHERE clause filters out a set of values that are correlated to the
expressions we're estimating the number of distinct value for.
For now, the costing we perform during query planning for result caches
does put quite a bit of faith in the distinct estimations being accurate.
When these are accurate then we should generally see faster execution
times for plans containing a result cache. However, in the real world, we
may find that we need to either change the costings to put less trust in
the distinct estimations being accurate or perhaps even disable this
feature by default. There's always an element of risk when we teach the
query planner to do new tricks that it decides to use that new trick at
the wrong time and causes a regression. Users may opt to get the old
behavior by turning the feature off using the enable_resultcache GUC.
Currently, this is enabled by default. It remains to be seen if we'll
maintain that setting for the release.
Additionally, the name "Result Cache" is the best name I could think of
for this new node at the time I started writing the patch. Nobody seems
to strongly dislike the name. A few people did suggest other names but no
other name seemed to dominate in the brief discussion that there was about
names. Let's allow the beta period to see if the current name pleases
enough people. If there's some consensus on a better name, then we can
change it before the release. Please see the 2nd discussion link below
for the discussion on the "Result Cache" name.
Author: David Rowley
Reviewed-by: Andy Fan, Justin Pryzby, Zhihong Yu
Tested-By: Konstantin Knizhnik
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/CAApHDvrPcQyQdWERGYWx8J%2B2DLUNgXu%2BfOSbQ1UscxrunyXyrQ%40mail.gmail.com
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/CAApHDvq=yQXr5kqhRviT2RhNKwToaWr9JAN5t+5_PzhuRJ3wvg@mail.gmail.com
|
|
This patch makes two closely related sets of changes:
1. For UPDATE, the subplan of the ModifyTable node now only delivers
the new values of the changed columns (i.e., the expressions computed
in the query's SET clause) plus row identity information such as CTID.
ModifyTable must re-fetch the original tuple to merge in the old
values of any unchanged columns. The core advantage of this is that
the changed columns are uniform across all tables of an inherited or
partitioned target relation, whereas the other columns might not be.
A secondary advantage, when the UPDATE involves joins, is that less
data needs to pass through the plan tree. The disadvantage of course
is an extra fetch of each tuple to be updated. However, that seems to
be very nearly free in context; even worst-case tests don't show it to
add more than a couple percent to the total query cost. At some point
it might be interesting to combine the re-fetch with the tuple access
that ModifyTable must do anyway to mark the old tuple dead; but that
would require a good deal of refactoring and it seems it wouldn't buy
all that much, so this patch doesn't attempt it.
2. For inherited UPDATE/DELETE, instead of generating a separate
subplan for each target relation, we now generate a single subplan
that is just exactly like a SELECT's plan, then stick ModifyTable
on top of that. To let ModifyTable know which target relation a
given incoming row refers to, a tableoid junk column is added to
the row identity information. This gets rid of the horrid hack
that was inheritance_planner(), eliminating O(N^2) planning cost
and memory consumption in cases where there were many unprunable
target relations.
Point 2 of course requires point 1, so that there is a uniform
definition of the non-junk columns to be returned by the subplan.
We can't insist on uniform definition of the row identity junk
columns however, if we want to keep the ability to have both
plain and foreign tables in a partitioning hierarchy. Since
it wouldn't scale very far to have every child table have its
own row identity column, this patch includes provisions to merge
similar row identity columns into one column of the subplan result.
In particular, we can merge the whole-row Vars typically used as
row identity by FDWs into one column by pretending they are type
RECORD. (It's still okay for the actual composite Datums to be
labeled with the table's rowtype OID, though.)
There is more that can be done to file down residual inefficiencies
in this patch, but it seems to be committable now.
FDW authors should note several API changes:
* The argument list for AddForeignUpdateTargets() has changed, and so
has the method it must use for adding junk columns to the query. Call
add_row_identity_var() instead of manipulating the parse tree directly.
You might want to reconsider exactly what you're adding, too.
* PlanDirectModify() must now work a little harder to find the
ForeignScan plan node; if the foreign table is part of a partitioning
hierarchy then the ForeignScan might not be the direct child of
ModifyTable. See postgres_fdw for sample code.
* To check whether a relation is a target relation, it's no
longer sufficient to compare its relid to root->parse->resultRelation.
Instead, check it against all_result_relids or leaf_result_relids,
as appropriate.
Amit Langote and Tom Lane
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/CA+HiwqHpHdqdDn48yCEhynnniahH78rwcrv1rEX65-fsZGBOLQ@mail.gmail.com
|
|
This implements asynchronous execution, which runs multiple parts of a
non-parallel-aware Append concurrently rather than serially to improve
performance when possible. Currently, the only node type that can be
run concurrently is a ForeignScan that is an immediate child of such an
Append. In the case where such ForeignScans access data on different
remote servers, this would run those ForeignScans concurrently, and
overlap the remote operations to be performed simultaneously, so it'll
improve the performance especially when the operations involve
time-consuming ones such as remote join and remote aggregation.
We may extend this to other node types such as joins or aggregates over
ForeignScans in the future.
This also adds the support for postgres_fdw, which is enabled by the
table-level/server-level option "async_capable". The default is false.
Robert Haas, Kyotaro Horiguchi, Thomas Munro, and myself. This commit
is mostly based on the patch proposed by Robert Haas, but also uses
stuff from the patch proposed by Kyotaro Horiguchi and from the patch
proposed by Thomas Munro. Reviewed by Kyotaro Horiguchi, Konstantin
Knizhnik, Andrey Lepikhov, Movead Li, Thomas Munro, Justin Pryzby, and
others.
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/CA%2BTgmoaXQEt4tZ03FtQhnzeDEMzBck%2BLrni0UWHVVgOTnA6C1w%40mail.gmail.com
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/CA%2BhUKGLBRyu0rHrDCMC4%3DRn3252gogyp1SjOgG8SEKKZv%3DFwfQ%40mail.gmail.com
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/20200228.170650.667613673625155850.horikyota.ntt%40gmail.com
|
|
Here we add a new output parameter to estimate_num_groups() to allow it to
inform the caller of additional, possibly useful information about the
estimation.
The new output parameter is a struct that currently contains just a single
field with a set of flags. This was done rather than having the flags as
an output parameter to allow future fields to be added without having to
change the signature of the function at a later date when we want to pass
back further information that might not be suitable to store in the flags
field.
It seems reasonable that one day in the future that the planner would want
to know more about the estimation. For example, how many individual sets
of statistics was the estimation generated from? The planner may want to
take that into account if we ever want to consider risks as well as costs
when generating plans.
For now, there's only 1 flag we set in the flags field. This is to
indicate if the estimation fell back on using the hard-coded constants in
any part of the estimation. Callers may like to change their behavior if
this is set, and this gives them the ability to do so. Callers may pass
the flag pointer as NULL if they have no interest in obtaining any
additional information about the estimate.
We're not adding any actual usages of these flags here. Some follow-up
commits will make use of this feature. Additionally, we're also not
making any changes to add support for clauselist_selectivity() and
clauselist_selectivity_ext(). However, if this is required in the future
then the same struct being added here should be fine to use as a new
output argument for those functions too.
Author: David Rowley
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/CAApHDvqQqpk=1W-G_ds7A9CsXX3BggWj_7okinzkLVhDubQzjA@mail.gmail.com
|
|
Here we aim to reduce duplicate work done by contain_volatile_functions()
by caching whether PathTargets and RestrictInfos contain any volatile
functions the first time contain_volatile_functions() is called for them.
Any future calls for these nodes just use the cached value rather than
going to the trouble of recursively checking the sub-node all over again.
Thanks to Tom Lane for the idea.
Any locations in the code which make changes to a PathTarget or
RestrictInfo which could change the outcome of the volatility check must
change the cached value back to VOLATILITY_UNKNOWN again.
contain_volatile_functions() is the only code in charge of setting the
cache value to either VOLATILITY_VOLATILE or VOLATILITY_NOVOLATILE.
Some existing code does benefit from this additional caching, however,
this change is mainly aimed at an upcoming patch that must check for
volatility during the join search. Repeated volatility checks in that
case can become very expensive when the join search contains more than a
few relations.
Author: David Rowley
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/3795226.1614059027@sss.pgh.pa.us
|
|
To allow inserts in parallel-mode this feature has to ensure that all the
constraints, triggers, etc. are parallel-safe for the partition hierarchy
which is costly and we need to find a better way to do that. Additionally,
we could have used existing cached information in some cases like indexes,
domains, etc. to determine the parallel-safety.
List of commits reverted, in reverse chronological order:
ed62d3737c Doc: Update description for parallel insert reloption.
c8f78b6161 Add a new GUC and a reloption to enable inserts in parallel-mode.
c5be48f092 Improve FK trigger parallel-safety check added by 05c8482f7f.
e2cda3c20a Fix use of relcache TriggerDesc field introduced by commit 05c8482f7f.
e4e87a32cc Fix valgrind issue in commit 05c8482f7f.
05c8482f7f Enable parallel SELECT for "INSERT INTO ... SELECT ...".
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/E1lMiB9-0001c3-SY@gemulon.postgresql.org
|
|
Commit 05c8482f7f added the implementation of parallel SELECT for
"INSERT INTO ... SELECT ..." which may incur non-negligible overhead in
the additional parallel-safety checks that it performs, even when, in the
end, those checks determine that parallelism can't be used. This is
normally only ever a problem in the case of when the target table has a
large number of partitions.
A new GUC option "enable_parallel_insert" is added, to allow insert in
parallel-mode. The default is on.
In addition to the GUC option, the user may want a mechanism to allow
inserts in parallel-mode with finer granularity at table level. The new
table option "parallel_insert_enabled" allows this. The default is true.
Author: "Hou, Zhijie"
Reviewed-by: Greg Nancarrow, Amit Langote, Takayuki Tsunakawa, Amit Kapila
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/CAA4eK1K-cW7svLC2D7DHoGHxdAdg3P37BLgebqBOC2ZLc9a6QQ%40mail.gmail.com
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/CAJcOf-cXnB5cnMKqWEp2E2z7Mvcd04iLVmV=qpFJrR3AcrTS3g@mail.gmail.com
|
|
This adds a new executor node named TID Range Scan. The query planner
will generate paths for TID Range scans when quals are discovered on base
relations which search for ranges on the table's ctid column. These
ranges may be open at either end. For example, WHERE ctid >= '(10,0)';
will return all tuples on page 10 and over.
To support this, two new optional callback functions have been added to
table AM. scan_set_tidrange is used to set the scan range to just the
given range of TIDs. scan_getnextslot_tidrange fetches the next tuple
in the given range.
For AMs were scanning ranges of TIDs would not make sense, these functions
can be set to NULL in the TableAmRoutine. The query planner won't
generate TID Range Scan Paths in that case.
Author: Edmund Horner, David Rowley
Reviewed-by: David Rowley, Tomas Vondra, Tom Lane, Andres Freund, Zhihong Yu
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/CAMyN-kB-nFTkF=VA_JPwFNo08S0d-Yk0F741S2B7LDmYAi8eyA@mail.gmail.com
|
|
d2d8a229bc58 introduced a new function generate_useful_gather_paths to
be used as a replacement for generate_gather_paths, but forgot to update
a couple of places that referenced the older function.
This is possibly not 100% complete (ref. create_ordered_paths), but it's
better than not changing anything.
Author: "Hou, Zhijie" <houzj.fnst@cn.fujitsu.com>
Reviewed-by: Tomas Vondra <tomas.vondra@enterprisedb.com>
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/4ce1d5116fe746a699a6d29858c6a39a@G08CNEXMBPEKD05.g08.fujitsu.local
|
|
It turns out that the calculation of [Merge]AppendPath.partitioned_rels
in allpaths.c is faulty and sometimes omits relevant non-leaf partitions,
allowing an assertion added by commit a929e17e5a8 to trigger. Rather
than fix that, it seems better to get rid of those fields altogether.
We don't really need the info until create_plan time, and calculating
it once for the selected plan should be cheaper than calculating it
for each append path we consider.
The preceding two commits did away with all use of the partitioned_rels
values; this commit just mechanically removes the fields and the code
that calculated them.
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/87sg8tqhsl.fsf@aurora.ydns.eu
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/CAJKUy5gCXDSmFs2c=R+VGgn7FiYcLCsEFEuDNNLGfoha=pBE_g@mail.gmail.com
|
|
Previously, pull_varnos() took the relids of a PlaceHolderVar as being
equal to the relids in its contents, but that fails to account for the
possibility that we have to postpone evaluation of the PHV due to outer
joins. This could result in a malformed plan. The known cases end up
triggering the "failed to assign all NestLoopParams to plan nodes"
sanity check in createplan.c, but other symptoms may be possible.
The right value to use is the join level we actually intend to evaluate
the PHV at. We can get that from the ph_eval_at field of the associated
PlaceHolderInfo. However, there are some places that call pull_varnos()
before the PlaceHolderInfos have been created; in that case, fall back
to the conservative assumption that the PHV will be evaluated at its
syntactic level. (In principle this might result in missing some legal
optimization, but I'm not aware of any cases where it's an issue in
practice.) Things are also a bit ticklish for calls occurring during
deconstruct_jointree(), but AFAICS the ph_eval_at fields should have
reached their final values by the time we need them.
The main problem in making this work is that pull_varnos() has no
way to get at the PlaceHolderInfos. We can fix that easily, if a
bit tediously, in HEAD by passing it the planner "root" pointer.
In the back branches that'd cause an unacceptable API/ABI break for
extensions, so leave the existing entry points alone and add new ones
with the additional parameter. (If an old entry point is called and
encounters a PHV, it'll fall back to using the syntactic level,
again possibly missing some valid optimization.)
Back-patch to v12. The computation is surely also wrong before that,
but it appears that we cannot reach a bad plan thanks to join order
restrictions imposed on the subquery that the PlaceHolderVar came from.
The error only became reachable when commit 4be058fe9 allowed trivial
subqueries to be collapsed out completely, eliminating their join order
restrictions.
Per report from Stephan Springl.
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/171041.1610849523@sss.pgh.pa.us
|
|
Backpatch-through: 9.5
|
|
Clarify the relationship between find_em_expr_usable_for_sorting_rel and
prepare_sort_from_pathkeys, i.e. what restrictions need to be shared
between those two places.
Author: James Coleman
Reviewed-by: Tomas Vondra
Backpatch-through: 13
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/CAAaqYe8cK3g5CfLC4w7bs%3DhC0mSksZC%3DH5M8LSchj5e5OxpTAg%40mail.gmail.com
|
|
While prepare_sort_from_pathkeys has to be concerned about matching up
a volatile expression to the proper tlist entry, we don't need to do
that in find_em_expr_usable_for_sorting_rel becausee such a sort will
have to be postponed anyway.
Author: James Coleman
Reviewed-by: Tomas Vondra
Backpatch-through: 13
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/CAAaqYe8cK3g5CfLC4w7bs%3DhC0mSksZC%3DH5M8LSchj5e5OxpTAg%40mail.gmail.com
|
|
While we do allow SRFs in ORDER BY, scan/join processing should not
consider such cases - such sorts should only happen via final Sort atop
a ProjectSet. So make sure we don't try adding such sorts below Gather
Merge, just like we do for expressions that are volatile and/or not
parallel safe.
Backpatch to PostgreSQL 13, where this code was introduced as part of
the Incremental Sort patch.
Author: James Coleman
Reviewed-by: Tomas Vondra
Backpatch-through: 13
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/CAAaqYe8cK3g5CfLC4w7bs=hC0mSksZC=H5M8LSchj5e5OxpTAg@mail.gmail.com
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/295524.1606246314%40sss.pgh.pa.us
|
|
Commit ebb7ae839d ensured we ignore pathkeys with volatile expressions
when considering adding a sort below a Gather Merge. Turns out we need
to care about parallel safety of the pathkeys too, otherwise we might
try sorting e.g. on results of a correlated subquery (as demonstrated
by a report from Luis Roberto).
Initial investigation by Tom Lane, patch by James Coleman. Backpatch
to 13, where the code was instroduced (as part of Incremental Sort).
Reported-by: Luis Roberto
Author: James Coleman
Reviewed-by: Tomas Vondra
Backpatch-through: 13
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/622580997.37108180.1604080457319.JavaMail.zimbra%40siscobra.com.br
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/CAAaqYe8cK3g5CfLC4w7bs=hC0mSksZC=H5M8LSchj5e5OxpTAg@mail.gmail.com
|
|
generate_useful_gather_paths used to skip unsorted paths (without any
pathkeys), but that is unnecessary - the later code actually can handle
such paths just fine by adding a Sort node. This is clearly a thinko,
preventing construction of useful plans.
Backpatch to 13, where Incremental Sort was introduced.
Author: James Coleman
Reviewed-by: Tomas Vondra
Backpatch-through: 13
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/CAAaqYe8cK3g5CfLC4w7bs=hC0mSksZC=H5M8LSchj5e5OxpTAg@mail.gmail.com
|
|
Formerly, extended statistics only handled clauses that were
RestrictInfos. However, the restrictinfo machinery doesn't create
sub-AND RestrictInfos for AND clauses underneath OR clauses.
Therefore teach extended statistics to handle bare AND clauses,
looking for compatible RestrictInfo clauses underneath them.
Dean Rasheed, reviewed by Tomas Vondra.
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/CAEZATCW=J65GUFm50RcPv-iASnS2mTXQbr=CfBvWRVhFLJ_fWA@mail.gmail.com
|
|
Formerly we only applied extended statistics to an OR clause as part
of the clauselist_selectivity() code path for an OR clause appearing
in an implicitly-ANDed list of clauses. This meant that it could only
use extended statistics if all sub-clauses of the OR clause were
covered by a single extended statistics object.
Instead, teach clause_selectivity() how to apply extended statistics
to an OR clause by handling its ORed list of sub-clauses in a similar
manner to an implicitly-ANDed list of sub-clauses, but with different
combination rules. This allows one or more extended statistics objects
to be used to estimate all or part of the list of sub-clauses. Any
remaining sub-clauses are then treated as if they are independent.
Additionally, to avoid double-application of extended statistics, this
introduces "extended" versions of clause_selectivity() and
clauselist_selectivity(), which include an option to ignore extended
statistics. This replaces the old clauselist_selectivity_simple()
function which failed to completely ignore extended statistics when
called from the extended statistics code.
A known limitation of the current infrastructure is that an AND clause
under an OR clause is not treated as compatible with extended
statistics (because we don't build RestrictInfos for such sub-AND
clauses). Thus, for example, "(a=1 AND b=1) OR (a=2 AND b=2)" will
currently be treated as two independent AND clauses (each of which may
be estimated using extended statistics), but extended statistics will
not currently be used to account for any possible overlap between
those clauses. Improving that is left as a task for the future.
Original patch by Tomas Vondra, with additional improvements by me.
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/20200113230008.g67iyk4cs3xbnjju@development
|
|
This has the advantage that the cost estimates for aggregates can count
the number of calls to transition and final functions correctly.
Bump catalog version, because views can contain Aggrefs.
Reviewed-by: Andres Freund
Discussion: https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/b2e3536b-1dbc-8303-c97e-89cb0b4a9a48%40iki.fi
|
|
When considering Incremental Sort below a Gather Merge, we need to be
a bit more careful when matching pathkeys to EC members. It's not enough
to find a member whose Vars are all in the current relation's target;
volatile expressions in particular need to be contained in the target,
otherwise it's too early to use the pathkey.
Reported-by: Jaime Casanova
Author: James Coleman
Reviewed-by: Tomas Vondra
Backpatch-through: 13, where the incremental sort code was added
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/CAJGNTeNaxpXgBVcRhJX%2B2vSbq%2BF2kJqGBcvompmpvXb7pq%2BoFA%40mail.gmail.com
|
|
The documentation fixes are backpatched down to where they apply.
Author: Justin Pryzby
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/20201031020801.GD3080@telsasoft.com
Backpatch-through: 9.6
|
|
Previously we only tagged on the required information to allow the
executor to perform run-time partition pruning for Append/MergeAppend
nodes belonging to base relations. It was thought that nested
Append/MergeAppend nodes were just about always pulled up into the
top-level Append/MergeAppend and that making the run-time pruning info for
any sub Append/MergeAppend nodes was a waste of time. However, that was
likely badly thought through.
Some examples of cases we're unable to pullup nested Append/MergeAppends
are: 1) Parallel Append nodes with a mix of parallel and non-parallel
paths into a Parallel Append. 2) When planning an ordered Append scan a
sub-partition which is unordered may require a nested MergeAppend path to
ensure sub-partitions don't mix up the order of tuples being fed into the
top-level Append.
Unfortunately, it was not just as simple as removing the lines in
createplan.c which were purposefully not building the run-time pruning
info for anything but RELOPT_BASEREL relations. The code in
add_paths_to_append_rel() was far too sloppy about which partitioned_rels
it included for the Append/MergeAppend paths. The original code there
would always assume accumulate_append_subpath() would pull each sub-Append
and sub-MergeAppend path into the top-level path. While it does not
appear that there were any actual bugs caused by having the additional
partitioned table RT indexes recorded, what it did mean is that later in
planning, when we built the run-time pruning info that we wasted effort
and built PartitionedRelPruneInfos for partitioned tables that we had no
subpaths for the executor to run-time prune.
Here we tighten that up so that partitioned_rels only ever contains the RT
index for partitioned tables which actually have subpaths in the given
Append/MergeAppend. We can now Assert that every PartitionedRelPruneInfo
has a non-empty present_parts. That should allow us to catch any weird
corner cases that have been missed.
In passing, it seems there is no longer a good reason to have the
AppendPath and MergeAppendPath's partitioned_rel fields a List of IntList.
We can simply have a List of Relids instead. This is more compact in
memory and faster to add new members to. We still know which is the root
level partition as these always have a lower relid than their children.
Previously this field was used for more things, but run-time partition
pruning now remains the only user of it and it has no need for a List of
IntLists.
Here we also get rid of the RelOptInfo partitioned_child_rels field. This
is what was previously used to (sometimes incorrectly) set the
Append/MergeAppend path's partitioned_rels field. That was the only usage
of that field, so we can happily just remove it.
I also couldn't resist changing some nearby code to make use of the newly
added for_each_from macro so we can skip the first element in the list
without checking if the current item was the first one on each
iteration.
A bug report from Andreas Kretschmer prompted all this work, however,
after some consideration, I'm not personally classing this as a bug fix.
So no backpatch. In Andreas' test case, it just wasn't that clear that
there was a nested Append since the top-level Append just had a single
sub-path which was pulled up a level, per 8edd0e794.
Author: David Rowley
Reviewed-by: Amit Langote
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/flat/CAApHDvqSchs%2BubdybcfFaSPB%2B%2BEA7kqMaoqajtP0GtZvzOOR3g%40mail.gmail.com
|
|
get_foreign_key_join_selectivity() looks for join clauses that equate
the two sides of the FK constraint. However, if we have a query like
"WHERE fktab.a = pktab.a and fktab.a = 1", it won't find any such join
clause, because equivclass.c replaces the given clauses with "fktab.a
= 1 and pktab.a = 1", which can be enforced at the scan level, leaving
nothing to be done for column "a" at the join level.
We can fix that expectation without much trouble, but then a new problem
arises: applying the foreign-key-based selectivity rule produces a
rowcount underestimate, because we're effectively double-counting the
selectivity of the "fktab.a = 1" clause. So we have to cancel that
selectivity out of the estimate.
To fix, refactor process_implied_equality() so that it can pass back the
new RestrictInfo to its callers in equivclass.c, allowing the generated
"fktab.a = 1" clause to be saved in the EquivalenceClass's ec_derives
list. Then it's not much trouble to dig out the relevant RestrictInfo
when we need to adjust an FK selectivity estimate. (While at it, we
can also remove the expensive use of initialize_mergeclause_eclasses()
to set up the new RestrictInfo's left_ec and right_ec pointers.
The equivclass.c code can set those basically for free.)
This seems like clearly a bug fix, but I'm hesitant to back-patch it,
first because there's some API/ABI risk for extensions and second because
we're usually loath to destabilize plan choices in stable branches.
Per report from Sigrid Ehrenreich.
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/1019549.1603770457@sss.pgh.pa.us
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/AM6PR02MB5287A0ADD936C1FA80973E72AB190@AM6PR02MB5287.eurprd02.prod.outlook.com
|
|
There is a handful of places where we called list_delete_ptr() to remove
some element from a List. In many of these places we know, or with very
little additional effort know the index of the ListCell that we need to
remove.
Here we change all of those places to instead either use one of;
list_delete_nth_cell(), foreach_delete_current() or list_delete_last().
Each of these saves from having to iterate over the list to search for the
element to remove by its pointer value.
There are some small performance gains to be had by doing this, but in the
general case, none of these lists are likely to be very large, so the
lookup was probably never that expensive anyway. However, some of the
calls are in fairly hot code paths, e.g process_equivalence(). So any
small gains there are useful.
Author: Zhijie Hou and David Rowley
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/b3517353ec7c4f87aa560678fbb1034b@G08CNEXMBPEKD05.g08.fujitsu.local
|
|
Given a query with enough joins, it was possible that the query planner,
after multiplying the row estimates with the join selectivity that the
estimated number of rows would exceed the limits of the double data type
and become infinite.
To give an indication on how extreme a case is required to hit this, the
particular example case reported required 379 joins to a table without any
statistics, which resulted in the 1.0/DEFAULT_NUM_DISTINCT being used for
the join selectivity. This eventually caused the row estimates to go
infinite and resulted in an assert failure in initial_cost_mergejoin()
where the infinite row estimated was multiplied by an outerstartsel of 0.0
resulting in NaN. The failing assert verified that NaN <= Inf, which is
false.
To get around this we use clamp_row_est() to cap row estimates at a
maximum of 1e100. This value is thought to be low enough that costs
derived from it would remain within the bounds of what the double type can
represent.
Aside from fixing the failing Assert, this also has the added benefit of
making it so add_path() will still receive proper numerical values as
costs which will allow it to make more sane choices when determining the
cheaper path in extreme cases such as the one described above.
Additionally, we also get rid of the isnan() checks in the join costing
functions. The actual case which originally triggered those checks to be
added in the first place never made it to the mailing lists. It seems
likely that the new code being added to clamp_row_est() will result in
those becoming checks redundant, so just remove them.
The fairly harmless assert failure problem does also exist in the
backbranches, however, a more minimalistic fix will be applied there.
Reported-by: Onder Kalaci
Reviewed-by: Tom Lane
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/DM6PR21MB1211FF360183BCA901B27F04D80B0@DM6PR21MB1211.namprd21.prod.outlook.com
|
|
This patch prevents crashes or wrong plans when partition-wise joins
are considered during GEQO planning, as a consequence of the
EquivalenceClass data structures becoming corrupt after a GEQO
context reset.
A remaining problem is that successive GEQO cycles will make multiple
copies of the required EC members, since add_child_join_rel_equivalences
has no idea that such members might exist already. For now we'll just
live with that. The lack of field complaints of crashes suggests that
this is a mighty little-used situation.
Back-patch to v12 where this code was introduced.
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/1683100.1601860653@sss.pgh.pa.us
|
|
get_eclass_for_sort_expr() computes expr_relids and nullable_relids
early on, even though they won't be needed unless we make a new
EquivalenceClass, which we often don't. Aside from the probably-minor
inefficiency, there's a memory management problem: these bitmapsets will
be built in the caller's context, leading to dangling pointers if that
is shorter-lived than root->planner_cxt. This would be a live bug if
get_eclass_for_sort_expr() could be called with create_it = true during
GEQO join planning. So far as I can find, the core code never does
that, but it's hard to be sure that no extensions do, especially since
the comments make it clear that that's supposed to be a supported case.
Fix by not computing these values until we've switched into planner_cxt
to build the new EquivalenceClass.
generate_join_implied_equalities() uses inner_rel->relids to look up
relevant eclasses, but it ought to be using nominal_inner_relids.
This is presently harmless because a child RelOptInfo will always have
exactly the same eclass_indexes as its topmost parent; but that might
not be true forever, and anyway it makes the code confusing.
The first of these is old (introduced by me in f3b3b8d5b), so back-patch
to all supported branches. The second only dates to v13, but we might
as well back-patch it to keep the code looking similar across branches.
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/1508010.1601832581@sss.pgh.pa.us
|
|
Tomas Vondra observed that the IO behavior for HashAgg tends to be
worse than for Sort. Penalize HashAgg IO costs accordingly.
Also, account for the CPU effort of spilling the tuples and reading
them back.
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/20200906212112.nzoy5ytrzjjodpfh@development
Reviewed-by: Tomas Vondra
Backpatch-through: 13
|
