| Commit message (Collapse) | Author | Age |
|---|
| |
|
|
| |
Backpatch-through: certain files through 9.4
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
In a lot of nodes the return slot is not required. That can either be
because the node doesn't do any projection (say an Append node), or
because the node does perform projections but the projection is
optimized away because the projection would yield an identical row.
Slots aren't that small, especially for wide rows, so it's worthwhile
to avoid creating them. It's not possible to just skip creating the
slot - it's currently used to determine the tuple descriptor returned
by ExecGetResultType(). So separate the determination of the result
type from the slot creation. The work previously done internally
ExecInitResultTupleSlotTL() can now also be done separately with
ExecInitResultTypeTL() and ExecInitResultSlot(). That way nodes that
aren't guaranteed to need a result slot, can use
ExecInitResultTypeTL() to determine the result type of the node, and
ExecAssignScanProjectionInfo() (via
ExecConditionalAssignProjectionInfo()) determines that a result slot
is needed, it is created with ExecInitResultSlot().
Besides the advantage of avoiding to create slots that then are
unused, this is necessary preparation for later patches around tuple
table slot abstraction. In particular separating the return descriptor
and slot is a prerequisite to allow JITing of tuple deforming with
knowledge of the underlying tuple format, and to avoid unnecessarily
creating JITed tuple deforming for virtual slots.
This commit removes a redundant argument from
ExecInitResultTupleSlotTL(). While this commit touches a lot of the
relevant lines anyway, it'd normally still not worthwhile to cause
breakage, except that aforementioned later commits will touch *all*
ExecInitResultTupleSlotTL() callers anyway (but fits worse
thematically).
Author: Andres Freund
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/20181105210039.hh4vvi4vwoq5ba2q@alap3.anarazel.de
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
The reason for doing so is that it will allow expression evaluation to
optimize based on the underlying tupledesc. In particular it will
allow to JIT tuple deforming together with the expression itself.
For that expression initialization needs to be moved after the
relevant slots are initialized - mostly unproblematic, except in the
case of nodeWorktablescan.c.
After doing so there's no need for ExecAssignResultType() and
ExecAssignResultTypeFromTL() anymore, as all former callers have been
converted to create a slot with a fixed descriptor.
When creating a slot with a fixed descriptor, tts_values/isnull can be
allocated together with the main slot, reducing allocation overhead
and increasing cache density a bit.
Author: Andres Freund
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/20171206093717.vqdxe5icqttpxs3p@alap3.anarazel.de
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
This has a performance benefit on own, although not hugely so. The
primary benefit is that it will allow for to JIT tuple deforming and
comparator invocations.
Large parts of this were previously committed (773aec7aa), but the
commit contained an omission around cross-type comparisons and was
thus reverted.
Author: Andres Freund
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/20171129080934.amqqkke2zjtekd4t@alap3.anarazel.de
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
This reverts commit 773aec7aa98abd38d6d9435913bb8e14e392c274.
There's an unresolved issue in the reverted commit: It only creates
one comparator function, but in for the nodeSubplan.c case we need
more (c.f. FindTupleHashEntry vs LookupTupleHashEntry calls in
nodeSubplan.c).
This isn't too difficult to fix, but it's not entirely trivial
either. The fact that the issue only causes breakage on 32bit systems
shows that the current test coverage isn't that great. To avoid
turning half the buildfarm red till those two issues are addressed,
revert.
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
This has a performance benefit on own, although not hugely so. The
primary benefit is that it will allow for to JIT tuple deforming and
comparator invocations.
Author: Andres Freund
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/20171129080934.amqqkke2zjtekd4t@alap3.anarazel.de
|
| |
|
|
| |
Backpatch-through: certain files through 9.3
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
This allows us to add stack-depth checks the first time an executor
node is called, and skip that overhead on following
calls. Additionally it yields a nice speedup.
While it'd probably have been a good idea to have that check all
along, it has become more important after the new expression
evaluation framework in b8d7f053c5c2bf2a7e - there's no stack depth
check in common paths anymore now. We previously relied on
ExecEvalExpr() being executed somewhere.
We should move towards that model for further routines, but as this is
required for v10, it seems better to only do the necessary (which
already is quite large).
Author: Andres Freund, Tom Lane
Reported-By: Julien Rouhaud
Discussion:
https://postgr.es/m/22833.1490390175@sss.pgh.pa.us
https://postgr.es/m/b0af9eaa-130c-60d0-9e4e-7a135b1e0c76@dalibo.com
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
In a followup commit ExecProcNode(), and especially the large switch
it contains, will largely be replaced by a function pointer directly
to the correct node. The node functions will then get invoked by a
thin inline function wrapper. To avoid having to include miscadmin.h
in headers - CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS() - move the interrupt checks into
the individual executor routines.
While looking through all executor nodes, I noticed a number of
arguably missing interrupt checks, add these too.
Author: Andres Freund, Tom Lane
Reviewed-By: Tom Lane
Discussion:
https://postgr.es/m/22833.1490390175@sss.pgh.pa.us
|
| | |
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
Commit 5dfc198146b49ce7ecc8a1fc9d5e171fb75f6ba5 introduced the use
of a new type of hash table with linear reprobing for hash aggregates.
Such a hash table behaves very poorly if keys are inserted in hash
order, which does in fact happen in the case where a query use a
Finalize HashAggregate node fed (via Gather) by a Partial
HashAggregate node. In fact, queries with this type of plan tend
to run effectively forever.
Fix that by seeding the hash value differently in each worker
(and in the leader, if it participates).
Andres Freund and Robert Haas
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
The more efficient hashtable speeds up hash-aggregations with more than
a few hundred groups significantly. Improvements of over 120% have been
measured.
Due to the the different hash table queries that not fully
determined (e.g. GROUP BY without ORDER BY) may change their result
order.
The conversion is largely straight-forward, except that, due to the
static element types of simplehash.h type hashes, the additional data
some users store in elements (e.g. the per-group working data for hash
aggregaters) is now stored in TupleHashEntryData->additional. The
meaning of BuildTupleHashTable's entrysize (renamed to additionalsize)
has been changed to only be about the additionally stored size. That
size is only used for the initial sizing of the hash-table.
Reviewed-By: Tomas Vondra
Discussion: <20160727004333.r3e2k2y6fvk2ntup@alap3.anarazel.de>
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
I found that half a dozen (nearly 5%) of our AllocSetContextCreate calls
had typos in the context-sizing parameters. While none of these led to
especially significant problems, they did create minor inefficiencies,
and it's now clear that expecting people to copy-and-paste those calls
accurately is not a great idea. Let's reduce the risk of future errors
by introducing single macros that encapsulate the common use-cases.
Three such macros are enough to cover all but two special-purpose contexts;
those two calls can be left as-is, I think.
While this patch doesn't in itself improve matters for third-party
extensions, it doesn't break anything for them either, and they can
gradually adopt the simplified notation over time.
In passing, change TopMemoryContext to use the default allocation
parameters. Formerly it could only be extended 8K at a time. That was
probably reasonable when this code was written; but nowadays we create
many more contexts than we did then, so that it's not unusual to have a
couple hundred K in TopMemoryContext, even without considering various
dubious code that sticks other things there. There seems no good reason
not to let it use growing blocks like most other contexts.
Back-patch to 9.6, mostly because that's still close enough to HEAD that
it's easy to do so, and keeping the branches in sync can be expected to
avoid some future back-patching pain. The bugs fixed by these changes
don't seem to be significant enough to justify fixing them further back.
Discussion: <21072.1472321324@sss.pgh.pa.us>
|
| |
|
|
| |
Backpatch certain files through 9.1
|
| |
|
|
| |
Backpatch certain files through 9.0
|
| |
|
|
|
| |
This includes removing tabs after periods in C comments, which was
applied to back branches, so this change should not effect backpatching.
|
| |
|
|
|
| |
Update all files in head, and files COPYRIGHT and legal.sgml in all back
branches.
|
| |
|
|
|
| |
Fully update git head, and update back branches in ./COPYRIGHT and
legal.sgml files.
|
| | |
|
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
This warning is new in gcc 4.6 and part of -Wall. This patch cleans
up most of the noise, but there are some still warnings that are
trickier to remove.
|
| | |
|
| | |
|
| | |
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
relation using the general PARAM_EXEC executor parameter mechanism, rather
than the ad-hoc kluge of passing the outer tuple down through ExecReScan.
The previous method was hard to understand and could never be extended to
handle parameters coming from multiple join levels. This patch doesn't
change the set of possible plans nor have any significant performance effect,
but it's necessary infrastructure for future generalization of the concept
of an inner indexscan plan.
ExecReScan's second parameter is now unused, so it's removed.
|
| | |
|
| | |
|
| |
|
|
| |
provided by Andrew.
|
| | |
|
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
implementation uses an in-memory hash table, so it will poop out for very
large recursive results ... but the performance characteristics of a
sort-based implementation would be pretty unpleasant too.
|
|
|
There are some unimplemented aspects: recursive queries must use UNION ALL
(should allow UNION too), and we don't have SEARCH or CYCLE clauses.
These might or might not get done for 8.4, but even without them it's a
pretty useful feature.
There are also a couple of small loose ends and definitional quibbles,
which I'll send a memo about to pgsql-hackers shortly. But let's land
the patch now so we can get on with other development.
Yoshiyuki Asaba, with lots of help from Tatsuo Ishii and Tom Lane
|
