| Commit message (Collapse) | Author | Age |
|---|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
Two near-identical copies of clause_sides_match_join() existed in
joinpath.c and analyzejoins.c. Deduplicate this by moving the function
into restrictinfo.h.
It isn't quite clear that keeping the inline property of this function
is worthwhile, but this commit is just an exercise in code
deduplication. More effort would be required to determine if the inline
property is worth keeping.
Author: James Hunter <james.hunter.pg@gmail.com>
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/CAJVSvF7Nm_9kgMLOch4c-5fbh3MYg%3D9BdnDx3Dv7Fcb64zr64Q%40mail.gmail.com
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
When creating merge or hash join plans in createplan.c, the merge or
hash clauses may need to get commuted to ensure that the outer var is
on the left and the inner var is on the right if they are not already
in the expected form. This requires that their operators have
commutators. Failing to find a commutator at this stage would result
in 'ERROR: could not find commutator for operator xxx', with no
opportunity to select an alternative plan.
Typically, this is not an issue because mergejoinable or hashable
operators are expected to always have valid commutators. But in some
artificial cases this assumption may not hold true. Therefore, here
in this patch we check the validity of commutators for clauses in the
form "inner op outer" when selecting mergejoin/hash clauses, and
consider a clause unusable for the current pair of outer and inner
relations if it lacks a commutator.
There are not (and should not be) any such operators built into
Postgres that are mergejoinable or hashable but have no commutators;
so we leverage the alias type 'int8alias1' created in equivclass.sql
to build the test case. This is why the test case is included in
equivclass.sql rather than in join.sql.
Although this is arguably a bug fix, it cannot be reproduced without
installing an incomplete opclass, which is unlikely to happen in
practice, so no back-patch.
Reported-by: Alexander Pyhalov
Author: Richard Guo
Reviewed-by: Tom Lane
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/c59ec04a2fef94d9ffc35a9b17dfc081@postgrespro.ru
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
Previously, when a path type was disabled by e.g. enable_seqscan=false,
we either avoided generating that path type in the first place, or
more commonly, we added a large constant, called disable_cost, to the
estimated startup cost of that path. This latter approach can distort
planning. For instance, an extremely expensive non-disabled path
could seem to be worse than a disabled path, especially if the full
cost of that path node need not be paid (e.g. due to a Limit).
Or, as in the regression test whose expected output changes with this
commit, the addition of disable_cost can make two paths that would
normally be distinguishible in cost seem to have fuzzily the same cost.
To fix that, we now count the number of disabled path nodes and
consider that a high-order component of both the startup cost and the
total cost. Hence, the path list is now sorted by disabled_nodes and
then by total_cost, instead of just by the latter, and likewise for
the partial path list. It is important that this number is a count
and not simply a Boolean; else, as soon as we're unable to respect
disabled path types in all portions of the path, we stop trying to
avoid them where we can.
Because the path list is now sorted by the number of disabled nodes,
the join prechecks must compute the count of disabled nodes during
the initial cost phase instead of postponing it to final cost time.
Counts of disabled nodes do not cross subquery levels; at present,
there is no reason for them to do so, since the we do not postpone
path selection across subquery boundaries (see make_subplan).
Reviewed by Andres Freund, Heikki Linnakangas, and David Rowley.
Discussion: http://postgr.es/m/CA+TgmoZ_+MS+o6NeGK2xyBv-xM+w1AfFVuHE4f_aq6ekHv7YSQ@mail.gmail.com
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
Parameterized partial paths are not supported, and we have several
checks in try_partial_xxx_path functions to enforce this. For a
partial nestloop join path, we need to ensure that if the inner path
is parameterized, the parameterization is fully satisfied by the
proposed outer path. For a partial merge/hashjoin join path, we need
to ensure that the inner path is not parameterized. In all cases, we
need to ensure that the outer path is not parameterized.
However, the comment in try_partial_hashjoin_path does not describe
this correctly. This patch fixes that.
In addtion, this patch simplifies the checks peformed in
try_partial_hashjoin_path and try_partial_mergejoin_path with the help
of macro PATH_REQ_OUTER, and also adds asserts that the outer path is
not parameterized in try_partial_xxx_path functions.
Author: Richard Guo
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/CAMbWs48mKJ6g_GnYNa7dnw04MHaMK-jnAEBrMVhTp2uUg3Ut4A@mail.gmail.com
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
In sort_inner_and_outer, we create mergejoin join paths by explicitly
sorting both relations on each possible ordering of the available
mergejoin clauses. However, if there are no available mergejoin
clauses, we can skip this process entirely.
This patch introduces a check for mergeclause_list at the beginning of
sort_inner_and_outer and exits the function if it is found to be
empty. This might help skip all the statements that come before the
call to select_outer_pathkeys_for_merge, including the build of
UniquePaths in the case of JOIN_UNIQUE_OUTER or JOIN_UNIQUE_INNER.
I doubt there's any measurable performance improvement, but throughout
the run of the regression tests, sort_inner_and_outer is called a
total of 44,424 times. Among these calls, there are 11,064 instances
where mergeclause_list is found to be empty, which accounts for
approximately one-fourth. I think this suggests that implementing
this shortcut is worthwhile.
Author: Richard Guo
Reviewed-by: Ashutosh Bapat
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/CAMbWs48RKiZGFEd5A0JtztRY5ZdvVvNiHh0AKeuoz21F+0dVjQ@mail.gmail.com
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
If we intend to generate a Memoize node on top of a path, we need
cache keys of some sort. Currently we search for the cache keys in
the parameterized clauses of the path as well as the lateral_vars of
its parent. However, it turns out that this is not sufficient because
there might be lateral references derived from PlaceHolderVars, which
we fail to take into consideration.
This oversight can cause us to miss opportunities to utilize the
Memoize node. Moreover, in some plans, failing to recognize all the
cache keys could result in performance regressions. This is because
without identifying all the cache keys, we would need to purge the
entire cache every time we get a new outer tuple during execution.
This patch fixes this issue by extracting lateral Vars from within
PlaceHolderVars and subsequently including them in the cache keys.
In passing, this patch also includes a comment clarifying that Memoize
nodes are currently not added on top of join relation paths. This
explains why this patch only considers PlaceHolderVars that are due to
be evaluated at baserels.
Author: Richard Guo
Reviewed-by: Tom Lane, David Rowley, Andrei Lepikhov
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/CAMbWs48jLxn0pAPZpJ50EThZ569Xrw+=4Ac3QvkpQvNszbeoNg@mail.gmail.com
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
When generating non-parallel nestloop paths for each available outer
path, we always consider materializing the cheapest inner path if
feasible. Similarly, in this patch, we also consider materializing
the cheapest inner path when building partial nestloop paths. This
approach potentially reduces the need to rescan the inner side of a
partial nestloop path for each outer tuple.
Author: Tender Wang
Reviewed-by: Richard Guo, Robert Haas, David Rowley, Alena Rybakina
Reviewed-by: Tomasz Rybak, Paul Jungwirth, Yuki Fujii
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/CAHewXNkPmtEXNfVQMou_7NqQmFABca9f4etjBtdbbm0ZKDmWvw@mail.gmail.com
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
Hash joins can support semijoin with the LHS input on the right, using
the existing logic for inner join, combined with the assurance that only
the first match for each inner tuple is considered, which can be
achieved by leveraging the HEAP_TUPLE_HAS_MATCH flag. This can be very
useful in some cases since we may now have the option to hash the
smaller table instead of the larger.
Merge join could likely support "Right Semi Join" too. However, the
benefit of swapping inputs tends to be small here, so we do not address
that in this patch.
Note that this patch also modifies a test query in join.sql to ensure it
continues testing as intended. With this patch the original query would
result in a right-semi-join rather than semi-join, compromising its
original purpose of testing the fix for neqjoinsel's behavior for
semi-joins.
Author: Richard Guo
Reviewed-by: wenhui qiu, Alena Rybakina, Japin Li
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/CAMbWs4_X1mN=ic+SxcyymUqFx9bB8pqSLTGJ-F=MHy4PW3eRXw@mail.gmail.com
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
When considering nestloop paths for individual partitions within
a partitionwise join, if the inner path is parameterized, it is
parameterized by the topmost parent of the outer rel, not the
corresponding outer rel itself. Therefore, we need to translate the
parameterization so that the inner path is parameterized by the
corresponding outer rel.
Up to now, we did this while generating join paths. However, that's
problematic because we must also translate some expressions that are
shared across all paths for a relation, such as restriction clauses
(kept in the RelOptInfo and/or IndexOptInfo) and TableSampleClauses
(kept in the RangeTblEntry). The existing code fails to translate
these at all, leading to wrong answers, odd failures such as
"variable not found in subplan target list", or executor crashes.
But we can't modify them during path generation, because that would
break things if we end up choosing some non-partitioned-join path.
So this patch postpones reparameterization of the inner path until
createplan.c, where it is safe to modify the referenced RangeTblEntry,
RelOptInfo or IndexOptInfo, because we have made a final choice of which
Path to use. We do still have to check during path generation that
the reparameterization will be possible. So we introduce a new
function path_is_reparameterizable_by_child() to detect that.
The duplication between path_is_reparameterizable_by_child() and
reparameterize_path_by_child() is a bit annoying, but there seems
no other good answer. A small benefit is that we can avoid building
useless reparameterized trees in cases where a non-partitioned join
is ultimately chosen. Also, reparameterize_path_by_child() can now
be allowed to scribble on the input paths, saving a few cycles.
This fix repairs the same problems previously addressed in the
back branches by commits 62f120203 et al.
Richard Guo, reviewed at various times by Ashutosh Bapat, Andrei
Lepikhov, Alena Rybakina, Robert Haas, and myself
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/CAMbWs496+N=UAjOc=rcD3P7B6oJe4rZw08e_TZRUsWbPxZW3Tw@mail.gmail.com
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
It was possible when determining the cache keys for a Memoize path that
if the same expr appeared twice in the parameterized path's ppi_clauses
and/or in the Nested Loop's inner relation's lateral_vars. If this
happened the Memoize node's cache keys would contain duplicates. This
isn't a problem for correctness, all it means is that the cache lookups
will be suboptimal due to having redundant work to do on every hash table
lookup and insert.
Here we adjust paraminfo_get_equal_hashops() to look for duplicates and
ignore them when we find them.
Author: David Rowley
Reviewed-by: Richard Guo
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/422277.1706207562%40sss.pgh.pa.us
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
This was previously fixed in 9e215378d but got broken again as a result
of 2489d76c4. It seems that commit causes ppi_clauses to contain
duplicate clauses and it's no longer safe to check the list_length of
that list to determine if there are join conditions other than what's
mentioned in ppi_clauses.
Here we adjust the check to count the distinct rinfo_serial mentioned in
ppi_clauses. We expect that extra->restrictlist won't have duplicate
rinfo_serials.
Reported-by: Amadeo Gallardo
Author: Richard Guo
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/CADFREbW-BLJd7-a5J%2B5wjVumeFG1ByXiSOFzMtkmY_SDWckTxw%40mail.gmail.com
Backpatch-through: 16, where 2489d76c4 was introduced.
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
These were not testing the same thing as the comparable Assert
in calc_nestloop_required_outer(), because we neglected to map
the given Paths' relids to top-level relids. When considering
a partition child join the latter is the correct thing to do.
This oversight is old, but since it's only an overly-weak Assert
check there doesn't seem to be much value in back-patching.
Richard Guo (with cosmetic changes and comment updates by me)
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/CAMbWs49sqbe9GBZ8sy8dSfKRNURgicR85HX8vgzcgQsPF0XY1w@mail.gmail.com
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
Reported-by: Michael Paquier
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/ZZKTDPxBBMt3C0J9@paquier.xyz
Backpatch-through: 12
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
The comment introduced by commit e7cb7ee14 was a bit too terse, which
could lead to extensions doing different things within the hook function
than we intend to allow. Extend the comment to explain what they can do
within the hook function.
Back-patch to all supported branches.
In passing, I rephrased a nearby comment that I recently added to the
back branches.
Reviewed by David Rowley and Andrei Lepikhov.
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/CAPmGK15SBPA1nr3Aqsdm%2BYyS-ay0Ayo2BRYQ8_A2To9eLqwopQ%40mail.gmail.com
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
quals.
This was disabled in commit 6f80a8d9c due to the lack of support for
handling of pseudoconstant quals assigned to replaced joins in
createplan.c. To re-allow it, this patch adds the support by 1)
modifying the ForeignPath and CustomPath structs so that if they
represent foreign and custom scans replacing a join with a scan, they
store the list of RestrictInfo nodes to apply to the join, as in
JoinPaths, and by 2) modifying create_scan_plan() in createplan.c so
that it uses that list in that case, instead of the baserestrictinfo
list, to get pseudoconstant quals assigned to the join, as mentioned in
the commit message for that commit.
Important item for the release notes: this is non-backwards-compatible
since it modifies the ForeignPath and CustomPath structs, as mentioned
above, and changes the argument lists for FDW helper functions
create_foreignscan_path(), create_foreign_join_path(), and
create_foreign_upper_path().
Richard Guo, with some additional changes by me, reviewed by Nishant
Sharma, Suraj Kharage, and Richard Guo.
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/CADrsxdbcN1vejBaf8a%2BQhrZY5PXL-04mCd4GDu6qm6FigDZd6Q%40mail.gmail.com
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
The use of Memoize was already disabled in normal joins when the join
conditions had volatile functions per the code in
match_opclause_to_indexcol(). Ordinarily, the parameterization for the
inner side of a nested loop will be an Index Scan or at least eventually
lead to an index scan (perhaps nested several joins deep). However, for
lateral joins, that's not the case and seq scans can be parameterized
too, so we can't rely on match_opclause_to_indexcol().
Here we explicitly check the parameterization for volatile functions and
don't consider the generation of a Memoize path when such functions
are present.
Author: Richard Guo
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/CAMbWs49nHFnHbpepLsv_yF3qkpCS4BdB-v8HoJVv8_=Oat0u_w@mail.gmail.com
Backpatch-through: 14, where Memoize was introduced
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
The comment mistakenly claimed the code was checking PlaceHolderVars for
volatile functions when the code was actually checking lateral vars.
Update the comment to reflect the reality of the code.
Author: Richard Guo
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/CAMbWs48HZGZOV85g0fx8z1qDx6NNKHexJPT2FCnKnZhxBWkd-A@mail.gmail.com
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
Commit e7cb7ee14, which introduced the infrastructure for FDWs and
custom scan providers to replace joins with scans, failed to add support
handling of pseudoconstant quals assigned to replaced joins in
createplan.c, leading to an incorrect plan without a gating Result node
when postgres_fdw replaced a join with such a qual.
To fix, we could add the support by 1) modifying the ForeignPath and
CustomPath structs to store the list of RestrictInfo nodes to apply to
the join, as in JoinPaths, if they represent foreign and custom scans
replacing a join with a scan, and by 2) modifying create_scan_plan() in
createplan.c to use that list in that case, instead of the
baserestrictinfo list, to get pseudoconstant quals assigned to the join;
but #1 would cause an ABI break. So fix by modifying the infrastructure
to just disallow replacing joins with such quals.
Back-patch to all supported branches.
Reported by Nishant Sharma. Patch by me, reviewed by Nishant Sharma and
Richard Guo.
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/CADrsxdbcN1vejBaf8a%2BQhrZY5PXL-04mCd4GDu6qm6FigDZd6Q%40mail.gmail.com
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
An outer join cannot be formed using an input path that is parameterized
by a value that is supposed to be nulled by the outer join. This is
obviously nonsensical, and it could lead to a bad plan being selected;
although currently it seems that we'll hit various sanity-check
assertions first.
I think that such cases were formerly prevented by the delay_upper_joins
mechanism, but now that that's gone we need an explicit check.
(Perhaps we should avoid generating baserel paths that could
lead to this situation in the first place; but it seems like
having a defense at the join level would be a good idea anyway.)
Richard Guo and Tom Lane, per report from Jaime Casanova
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/CAJKUy5g2uZRrUDZJ8p-=giwcSHVUn0c9nmdxPSY0jF0Ov8VoEA@mail.gmail.com
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
It turns out that the fixes we applied in commits bfd332b3f
and 63e4f13d2 were not nearly enough to solve the problem.
We'd focused narrowly on subquery RTEs with lateral references,
but lateral references can occur in several other RTE kinds
such as function RTEs. Putting the same hack into half a dozen
code paths seems quite unattractive. Hence, revert the code changes
(but not the test cases) from those commits and instead solve it
centrally in identify_current_nestloop_params(), as Richard proposed
originally. This is a bit annoying because it could mask erroneous
nullingrels in nestloop params that are generated from non-LATERAL
parameterized paths; but on balance I don't see a better way.
Maybe at some future time we'll be motivated to find a more rigorous
approach to nestloop params, but that's not happening for beta2.
Richard Guo and Tom Lane
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/CAMbWs48Jcw-NvnxT23WiHP324wG44DvzcH1j4hc0Zn+3sR9cfg@mail.gmail.com
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
The issue fixed in commit bfd332b3f can also bite Memoize plans,
because of the separate copies of lateral reference Vars made
by paraminfo_get_equal_hashops. Apply the same hacky fix there.
(In passing, clean up shaky grammar in the existing comments
for this function.)
Richard Guo
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/CAMbWs4-krwk0Wbd6WdufMAupuou_Ua73ijQ4XQCr1Mb5BaVtKQ@mail.gmail.com
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
Merge and hash joins can support antijoin with the non-nullable input
on the right, using very simple combinations of their existing logic
for right join and anti join. This gives the planner more freedom
about how to order the join. It's particularly useful for hash join,
since we may now have the option to hash the smaller table instead
of the larger.
Richard Guo, reviewed by Ronan Dunklau and myself
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/CAMbWs48xh9hMzXzSy3VaPzGAz+fkxXXTUbCLohX1_L8THFRm2Q@mail.gmail.com
|
| |
|
|
|
| |
Reported-by: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/1604497.1680637072%40sss.pgh.pa.us
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
Full and right outer joins were not supported in the initial
implementation of Parallel Hash Join because of deadlock hazards (see
discussion). Therefore FULL JOIN inhibited parallelism, as the other
join strategies can't do that in parallel either.
Add a new PHJ phase PHJ_BATCH_SCAN that scans for unmatched tuples on
the inner side of one batch's hash table. For now, sidestep the
deadlock problem by terminating parallelism there. The last process to
arrive at that phase emits the unmatched tuples, while others detach and
are free to go and work on other batches, if there are any, but
otherwise they finish the join early.
That unfairness is considered acceptable for now, because it's better
than no parallelism at all. The build and probe phases are run in
parallel, and the new scan-for-unmatched phase, while serial, is usually
applied to the smaller of the two relations and is either limited by
some multiple of work_mem, or it's too big and is partitioned into
batches and then the situation is improved by batch-level parallelism.
Author: Melanie Plageman <melanieplageman@gmail.com>
Author: Thomas Munro <thomas.munro@gmail.com>
Reviewed-by: Thomas Munro <thomas.munro@gmail.com>
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/CA%2BhUKG%2BA6ftXPz4oe92%2Bx8Er%2BxpGZqto70-Q_ERwRaSyA%3DafNg%40mail.gmail.com
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
Late in the development of commit 2489d76c4, I (tgl) incorrectly
concluded that the new function have_unsafe_outer_join_ref couldn't
ever reach its inner loop. That should be the case if the inner
rel's parameterization is based on just one Var, but it could be
based on Vars from several relations, and then not only is the
inner loop reachable but it's wrongly coded.
Despite those errors, it still appears that the whole thing is
redundant given previous join_is_legal checks, so let's arrange
to only run it in assert-enabled builds.
Diagnosis and patch by Richard Guo, per fuzz testing by Justin Pryzby.
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/20230212235823.GW1653@telsasoft.com
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
EquivalenceClasses are now understood as applying within a "join
domain", which is a set of inner-joined relations (possibly underneath
an outer join). We no longer need to treat an EC from below an outer
join as a second-class citizen.
I have hopes of eventually being able to treat outer-join clauses via
EquivalenceClasses, by means of only applying deductions within the
EC's join domain. There are still problems in the way of that, though,
so for now the reconsider_outer_join_clause logic is still here.
I haven't been able to get rid of RestrictInfo.is_pushed_down either,
but I wonder if that could be recast using JoinDomains.
I had to hack one test case in postgres_fdw.sql to make it still test
what it was meant to, because postgres_fdw is inconsistent about
how it deals with quals containing non-shippable expressions; see
https://postgr.es/m/1691374.1671659838@sss.pgh.pa.us. That should
be improved, but I don't think it's within the scope of this patch
series.
Patch by me; thanks to Richard Guo for review.
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/830269.1656693747@sss.pgh.pa.us
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
Traditionally we used the same Var struct to represent the value
of a table column everywhere in parse and plan trees. This choice
predates our support for SQL outer joins, and it's really a pretty
bad idea with outer joins, because the Var's value can depend on
where it is in the tree: it might go to NULL above an outer join.
So expression nodes that are equal() per equalfuncs.c might not
represent the same value, which is a huge correctness hazard for
the planner.
To improve this, decorate Var nodes with a bitmapset showing
which outer joins (identified by RTE indexes) may have nulled
them at the point in the parse tree where the Var appears.
This allows us to trust that equal() Vars represent the same value.
A certain amount of klugery is still needed to cope with cases
where we re-order two outer joins, but it's possible to make it
work without sacrificing that core principle. PlaceHolderVars
receive similar decoration for the same reason.
In the planner, we include these outer join bitmapsets into the relids
that an expression is considered to depend on, and in consequence also
add outer-join relids to the relids of join RelOptInfos. This allows
us to correctly perceive whether an expression can be calculated above
or below a particular outer join.
This change affects FDWs that want to plan foreign joins. They *must*
follow suit when labeling foreign joins in order to match with the
core planner, but for many purposes (if postgres_fdw is any guide)
they'd prefer to consider only base relations within the join.
To support both requirements, redefine ForeignScan.fs_relids as
base+OJ relids, and add a new field fs_base_relids that's set up by
the core planner.
Large though it is, this commit just does the minimum necessary to
install the new mechanisms and get check-world passing again.
Follow-up patches will perform some cleanup. (The README additions
and comments mention some stuff that will appear in the follow-up.)
Patch by me; thanks to Richard Guo for review.
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/830269.1656693747@sss.pgh.pa.us
|
| |
|
|
| |
Backpatch-through: 11
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
A couple of places weren't up to speed for this. By sheer good
luck, we didn't fail but just selected a non-memoized join plan,
at least in the test case we have. Nonetheless, it's a bug,
and I'm not quite sure that it couldn't have worse consequences
in other examples. So back-patch to v14 where Memoize came in.
Richard Guo
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/CAMbWs48GkNom272sfp0-WeD6_0HSR19BJ4H1c9ZKSfbVnJsvRg@mail.gmail.com
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
In order to estimate the cache hit ratio of a Memoize node, one of the
inputs we require is the estimated number of times the Memoize node will
be rescanned. The higher this number, the large the cache hit ratio is
likely to become. Unfortunately, the value being passed as the number of
"calls" to the Memoize was incorrectly using the Nested Loop's
outer_path->parent->rows instead of outer_path->rows. This failed to
account for the fact that the outer_path might be parameterized by some
upper-level Nested Loop.
This problem could lead to Memoize plans appearing more favorable than
they might actually be. It could also lead to extended executor startup
times when work_mem values were large due to the planner setting overly
large MemoizePath->est_entries resulting in the Memoize hash table being
initially made much larger than might be required.
Fix this simply by passing outer_path->rows rather than
outer_path->parent->rows. Also, adjust the expected regression test
output for a plan change.
Reported-by: Pavel Stehule
Author: David Rowley
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/CAFj8pRAMp%3DQsMi6sPQJ4W3hczoFJRvyXHJV3AZAZaMyTVM312Q%40mail.gmail.com
Backpatch-through: 14, where Memoize was introduced
|
| |
|
|
|
| |
Run pgindent, pgperltidy, and reformat-dat-files.
I manually fixed a couple of comments that pgindent uglified.
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
In sort_inner_and_outer we iterate a list of PathKey elements, but the
variable is declared as (List *). This mistake is benign, because we
only pass the pointer to lcons() and never dereference it.
This exists since ~2004, but it's confusing. So fix and backpatch to all
supported branches.
Backpatch-through: 10
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/bf3a6ea1-a7d8-7211-0669-189d5c169374%40enterprisedb.com
|
| |
|
|
| |
Backpatch-through: 10
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
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
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
"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
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
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
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
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
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
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
|
| |
|
|
| |
Backpatch-through: 9.5
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
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
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
We used to strategically place newlines after some function call left
parentheses to make pgindent move the argument list a few chars to the
left, so that the whole line would fit under 80 chars. However,
pgindent no longer does that, so the newlines just made the code
vertically longer for no reason. Remove those newlines, and reflow some
of those lines for some extra naturality.
Reviewed-by: Michael Paquier, Tom Lane
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/20200129200401.GA6303@alvherre.pgsql
|
| |
|
|
| |
Backpatch-through: update all files in master, backpatch legal files through 9.4
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
WHERE EXISTS (...) queries cannot be executed by Parallel Hash Join
with jointype JOIN_UNIQUE_INNER, because there is no way to make a
partial plan totally unique. The consequence of allowing such plans
was duplicate results from some EXISTS queries.
Back-patch to 11. Bug #15857.
Author: Thomas Munro
Reviewed-by: Tom Lane
Reported-by: Vladimir Kriukov
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/15857-d1ba2a64bce0795e%40postgresql.org
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
Switch to 2.1 version of pg_bsd_indent. This formats
multiline function declarations "correctly", that is with
additional lines of parameter declarations indented to match
where the first line's left parenthesis is.
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/CAEepm=0P3FeTXRcU5B2W3jv3PgRVZ-kGUXLGfd42FFhUROO3ug@mail.gmail.com
|
| |
|
|
| |
Backpatch-through: certain files through 9.4
|
| | |
|
