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
Two callers of generate_useful_gather_paths were testing the wrong
thing when deciding whether to call that function: they checked for
being at the top of the current join subproblem, rather than being at
the actual top join. This'd result in failing to construct parallel
paths for a sub-join for which they might be useful.
While set_rel_pathlist() isn't actively broken, it seems best to
make its identical-in-intention test for this be like the other two.
This has been wrong all along, but given the lack of field complaints
I'm hesitant to back-patch into stable branches; we usually prefer
to avoid non-bug-fix changes in plan choices in minor releases.
It seems not too late for v15 though.
Richard Guo, reviewed by Antonin Houska and Tom Lane
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/CAMbWs4-mH8Zf87-w+3P2J=nJB+5OyicO28ia9q_9o=Lamf_VHg@mail.gmail.com
Commit d2d8a229bc introduced Incremental Sort, but it was considered
only in create_ordered_paths() as an alternative to regular Sort. There
are many other places that require sorted input and might benefit from
considering Incremental Sort too.
This patch modifies a number of those places, but not all. The concern
is that just adding Incremental Sort to any place that already adds
Sort may increase the number of paths considered, negatively affecting
planning time, without any benefit. So we've taken a more conservative
approach, based on analysis of which places do affect a set of queries
that did seem practical. This means some less common queries may not
benefit from Incremental Sort yet.
Author: Tomas Vondra
Reviewed-by: James Coleman
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/CAPpHfds1waRZ=NOmueYq0sx1ZSCnt+5QJvizT8ndT2=etZEeAQ@mail.gmail.com
It seems worth getting rid of these functions because they require the
caller to retain a ListCell pointer into a List that it's modifying,
which is a dangerous practice with the new List implementation.
(The only other List-modifying function that takes a ListCell pointer
as input is list_delete_cell, which nowadays is preferentially used
via the constrained API foreach_delete_current.)
There was only one remaining caller of these functions after commit
2f5b8eb5a, and that was some fairly ugly GEQO code that can be much
more clearly expressed using a list-index variable and list_insert_nth.
Hence, rewrite that code, and remove the functions.
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/26193.1563228600@sss.pgh.pa.us
Originally, Postgres Lists were a more or less exact reimplementation of
Lisp lists, which consist of chains of separately-allocated cons cells,
each having a value and a next-cell link. We'd hacked that once before
(commit d0b4399d8) to add a separate List header, but the data was still
in cons cells. That makes some operations -- notably list_nth() -- O(N),
and it's bulky because of the next-cell pointers and per-cell palloc
overhead, and it's very cache-unfriendly if the cons cells end up
scattered around rather than being adjacent.
In this rewrite, we still have List headers, but the data is in a
resizable array of values, with no next-cell links. Now we need at
most two palloc's per List, and often only one, since we can allocate
some values in the same palloc call as the List header. (Of course,
extending an existing List may require repalloc's to enlarge the array.
But this involves just O(log N) allocations not O(N).)
Of course this is not without downsides. The key difficulty is that
addition or deletion of a list entry may now cause other entries to
move, which it did not before.
For example, that breaks foreach() and sister macros, which historically
used a pointer to the current cons-cell as loop state. We can repair
those macros transparently by making their actual loop state be an
integer list index; the exposed "ListCell *" pointer is no longer state
carried across loop iterations, but is just a derived value. (In
practice, modern compilers can optimize things back to having just one
loop state value, at least for simple cases with inline loop bodies.)
In principle, this is a semantics change for cases where the loop body
inserts or deletes list entries ahead of the current loop index; but
I found no such cases in the Postgres code.
The change is not at all transparent for code that doesn't use foreach()
but chases lists "by hand" using lnext(). The largest share of such
code in the backend is in loops that were maintaining "prev" and "next"
variables in addition to the current-cell pointer, in order to delete
list cells efficiently using list_delete_cell(). However, we no longer
need a previous-cell pointer to delete a list cell efficiently. Keeping
a next-cell pointer doesn't work, as explained above, but we can improve
matters by changing such code to use a regular foreach() loop and then
using the new macro foreach_delete_current() to delete the current cell.
(This macro knows how to update the associated foreach loop's state so
that no cells will be missed in the traversal.)
There remains a nontrivial risk of code assuming that a ListCell *
pointer will remain good over an operation that could now move the list
contents. To help catch such errors, list.c can be compiled with a new
define symbol DEBUG_LIST_MEMORY_USAGE that forcibly moves list contents
whenever that could possibly happen. This makes list operations
significantly more expensive so it's not normally turned on (though it
is on by default if USE_VALGRIND is on).
There are two notable API differences from the previous code:
* lnext() now requires the List's header pointer in addition to the
current cell's address.
* list_delete_cell() no longer requires a previous-cell argument.
These changes are somewhat unfortunate, but on the other hand code using
either function needs inspection to see if it is assuming anything
it shouldn't, so it's not all bad.
Programmers should be aware of these significant performance changes:
* list_nth() and related functions are now O(1); so there's no
major access-speed difference between a list and an array.
* Inserting or deleting a list element now takes time proportional to
the distance to the end of the list, due to moving the array elements.
(However, it typically *doesn't* require palloc or pfree, so except in
long lists it's probably still faster than before.) Notably, lcons()
used to be about the same cost as lappend(), but that's no longer true
if the list is long. Code that uses lcons() and list_delete_first()
to maintain a stack might usefully be rewritten to push and pop at the
end of the list rather than the beginning.
* There are now list_insert_nth...() and list_delete_nth...() functions
that add or remove a list cell identified by index. These have the
data-movement penalty explained above, but there's no search penalty.
* list_concat() and variants now copy the second list's data into
storage belonging to the first list, so there is no longer any
sharing of cells between the input lists. The second argument is
now declared "const List *" to reflect that it isn't changed.
This patch just does the minimum needed to get the new implementation
in place and fix bugs exposed by the regression tests. As suggested
by the foregoing, there's a fair amount of followup work remaining to
do.
Also, the ENABLE_LIST_COMPAT macros are finally removed in this
commit. Code using those should have been gone a dozen years ago.
Patch by me; thanks to David Rowley, Jesper Pedersen, and others
for review.
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/11587.1550975080@sss.pgh.pa.us
Don't call generate_gather_paths for the topmost scan/join relation
when it is initially populated with paths. Instead, do the work in
grouping_planner. By itself, this gains nothing; in fact it loses
slightly because we end up calling set_cheapest() for the topmost
scan/join rel twice rather than once. However, it paves the way for
a future commit which will postpone generate_gather_paths for the
topmost scan/join relation even further, allowing more accurate
costing of parallel paths.
Amit Kapila and Robert Haas. Earlier versions of this patch (which
different substantially) were reviewed by Dilip Kumar, Amit
Khandekar, Marina Polyakova, and Ashutosh Bapat.
Up until now, we've abused grouped_rel->partial_pathlist as a place to
store partial paths that have been partially aggregate, but that's
really not correct, because a partial path for a relation is supposed
to be one which produces the correct results with the addition of only
a Gather or Gather Merge node, and these paths also require a Finalize
Aggregate step. Instead, add a new partially_group_rel which can hold
either partial paths (which need to be gathered and then have
aggregation finalized) or non-partial paths (which only need to have
aggregation finalized). This allows us to reuse generate_gather_paths
for partially_grouped_rel instead of writing new code, so that this
patch actually basically no net new code while making things cleaner,
simplifying things for pending patches for partition-wise aggregate.
Robert Haas and Jeevan Chalke. The larger patch series of which this
patch is a part was also reviewed and tested by Antonin Houska,
Rajkumar Raghuwanshi, David Rowley, Dilip Kumar, Konstantin Knizhnik,
Pascal Legrand, Rafia Sabih, and me.
Discussion: http://postgr.es/m/CA+TgmobrzFYS3+U8a_BCy3-hOvh5UyJbC18rEcYehxhpw5=ETA@mail.gmail.com
Discussion: http://postgr.es/m/CA+TgmoZyQEjdBNuoG9-wC5GQ5GrO4544Myo13dVptvx+uLg9uQ@mail.gmail.com
Instead of joining two partitioned tables in their entirety we can, if
it is an equi-join on the partition keys, join the matching partitions
individually. This involves teaching the planner about "other join"
rels, which are related to regular join rels in the same way that
other member rels are related to baserels. This can use significantly
more CPU time and memory than regular join planning, because there may
now be a set of "other" rels not only for every base relation but also
for every join relation. In most practical cases, this probably
shouldn't be a problem, because (1) it's probably unusual to join many
tables each with many partitions using the partition keys for all
joins and (2) if you do that scenario then you probably have a big
enough machine to handle the increased memory cost of planning and (3)
the resulting plan is highly likely to be better, so what you spend in
planning you'll make up on the execution side. All the same, for now,
turn this feature off by default.
Currently, we can only perform joins between two tables whose
partitioning schemes are absolutely identical. It would be nice to
cope with other scenarios, such as extra partitions on one side or the
other with no match on the other side, but that will have to wait for
a future patch.
Ashutosh Bapat, reviewed and tested by Rajkumar Raghuwanshi, Amit
Langote, Rafia Sabih, Thomas Munro, Dilip Kumar, Antonin Houska, Amit
Khandekar, and by me. A few final adjustments by me.
Discussion: http://postgr.es/m/CAFjFpRfQ8GrQvzp3jA2wnLqrHmaXna-urjm_UY9BqXj=EaDTSA@mail.gmail.com
Discussion: http://postgr.es/m/CAFjFpRcitjfrULr5jfuKWRPsGUX0LQ0k8-yG0Qw2+1LBGNpMdw@mail.gmail.com
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>
We mustn't run generate_gather_paths() during add_paths_to_joinrel(),
because that function can be invoked multiple times for the same target
joinrel. Not only is it wasteful to build GatherPaths repeatedly, but
a later add_partial_path() could delete the partial path that a previously
created GatherPath depends on. Instead establish the convention that we
do generate_gather_paths() for a rel only just before set_cheapest().
The code was accidentally not broken for baserels, because as of today there
never is more than one partial path for a baserel. But that assumption
obviously has a pretty short half-life, so move the generate_gather_paths()
calls for those cases as well.
Also add some generic comments explaining how and why this all works.
Per fuzz testing by Andreas Seltenreich.
Report: <871t5pgwdt.fsf@credativ.de>
Back in commit 400e2c9344 I rewrote GEQO's
gimme_tree function to improve its heuristic for modifying the given tour
into a legal join order. In what can only be called a fit of hubris,
I supposed that this new heuristic would *always* find a legal join order,
and ripped out the old logic that allowed gimme_tree to sometimes fail.
The folly of this is exposed by bug #12760, in which the "greedy" clumping
behavior of merge_clump() can lead it into a dead end which could only be
recovered from by un-clumping. We have no code for that and wouldn't know
exactly what to do with it if we did. Rather than try to improve the
heuristic rules still further, let's just recognize that it *is* a
heuristic and probably must always have failure cases. So, put back the
code removed in the previous commit to allow for failure (but comment it
a bit better this time).
It's possible that this code was actually fully correct at the time and
has only been broken by the introduction of LATERAL. But having seen this
example I no longer have much faith in that proposition, so back-patch to
all supported branches.
In the initial cut at LATERAL, I kept the rule that cheapest_total_path
was always unparameterized, which meant it had to be NULL if the relation
has no unparameterized paths. It turns out to work much more nicely if
we always have *some* path nominated as cheapest-total for each relation.
In particular, let's still say it's the cheapest unparameterized path if
there is one; if not, take the cheapest-total-cost path among those of
the minimum available parameterization. (The first rule is actually
a special case of the second.)
This allows reversion of some temporary lobotomizations I'd put in place.
In particular, the planner can now consider hash and merge joins for
joins below a parameter-supplying nestloop, even if there aren't any
unparameterized paths available. This should bring planning of
LATERAL-containing queries to the same level as queries not using that
feature.
Along the way, simplify management of parameterized paths in add_path()
and friends. In the original coding for parameterized paths in 9.2,
I tried to minimize the logic changes in add_path(), so it just treated
parameterization as yet another dimension of comparison for paths.
We later made it ignore pathkeys (sort ordering) of parameterized paths,
on the grounds that ordering isn't a useful property for the path on the
inside of a nestloop, so we might as well get rid of useless parameterized
paths as quickly as possible. But we didn't take that reasoning as far as
we should have. Startup cost isn't a useful property inside a nestloop
either, so add_path() ought to discount startup cost of parameterized paths
as well. Having done that, the secondary sorting I'd implemented (in
add_parameterized_path) is no longer needed --- any parameterized path that
survives add_path() at all is worth considering at higher levels. So this
should be a bit faster as well as simpler.
This patch implements the standard syntax of LATERAL attached to a
sub-SELECT in FROM, and also allows LATERAL attached to a function in FROM,
since set-returning function calls are expected to be one of the principal
use-cases.
The main change here is a rewrite of the mechanism for keeping track of
which relations are visible for column references while the FROM clause is
being scanned. The parser "namespace" lists are no longer lists of bare
RTEs, but are lists of ParseNamespaceItem structs, which carry an RTE
pointer as well as some visibility-controlling flags. Aside from
supporting LATERAL correctly, this lets us get rid of the ancient hacks
that required rechecking subqueries and JOIN/ON and function-in-FROM
expressions for invalid references after they were initially parsed.
Invalid column references are now always correctly detected on sight.
In passing, remove assorted parser error checks that are now dead code by
virtue of our having gotten rid of add_missing_from, as well as some
comments that are obsolete for the same reason. (It was mainly
add_missing_from that caused so much fudging here in the first place.)
The planner support for this feature is very minimal, and will be improved
in future patches. It works well enough for testing purposes, though.
catversion bump forced due to new field in RangeTblEntry.
by adding a requirement that build_join_rel add new join RelOptInfos to the
appropriate list immediately at creation. Per report from Robert Haas,
the list_concat_unique_ptr() calls that this change eliminates were taking
the lion's share of the runtime in larger join problems. This doesn't do
anything to fix the fundamental combinatorial explosion in large join
problems, but it should push out the threshold of pain a bit further.
Note: because this changes the order in which joinrel lists are built,
it might result in changes in selected plans in cases where different
alternatives have exactly the same costs. There is one example in the
regression tests.
sequence, even when the input "tour" doesn't lead directly to such a sequence.
The stack logic that was added in 2004 only supported cases where relations
that had to be joined to each other (due to join order restrictions) were
adjacent in the tour. However, relying on a random search to figure that out
is tremendously inefficient in large join problems, and could even fail
completely (leading to "failed to make a valid plan" errors) if
random_init_pool ran out of patience. It seems better to make the
tour-to-plan transformation a little bit fuzzier so that every tour can form
a legal plan, even though this means that apparently different tours will
sometimes yield the same plan.
In the same vein, get rid of the logic that knew that tours (a,b,c,d,...)
are the same as tours (b,a,c,d,...), and therefore insisted the latter
are invalid. The chance of generating two tours that differ only in
this way isn't that high, and throwing out 50% of possible tours to
avoid such duplication seems more likely to waste valuable genetic-
refinement generations than to do anything useful.
This leaves us with no cases in which geqo_eval will deem a tour invalid,
so get rid of assorted kluges that tried to deal with such cases, in
particular the undocumented assumption that DBL_MAX is an impossible
plan cost.
This is all per testing of Robert Haas' lets-remove-the-collapse-limits
patch. That idea has crashed and burned, at least for now, but we still
got something useful out of it.
It's possible we should back-patch this change, since the "failed to make a
valid plan" error can happen in existing releases; but I'd rather not until
it has gotten more testing.
random number seed each time. This is how it used to work years ago, but
we got rid of the seed reset because it was resetting the main random()
sequence and thus having undesirable effects on the rest of the system.
To fix, establish a private random number state for each execution of
geqo(), and initialize the state using the new GUC variable geqo_seed.
People who want to experiment with different random searches can do so
by changing geqo_seed, but you'll always get the same plan for the same
value of geqo_seed (if holding all other planner inputs constant, of course).
The new state is kept in PlannerInfo by adding a "void *" field reserved
for use by join_search hooks. Most of the rather bulky code changes in
this commit are just arranging to pass PlannerInfo around to all the GEQO
functions (many of which formerly didn't receive it).
Andres Freund, with some editorialization by Tom
considered when it is necessary to do so because of a join-order restriction
(that is, an outer-join or IN-subselect construct). The former coding was a
bit ad-hoc and inconsistent, and it missed some cases, as exposed by Mario
Weilguni's recent bug report. His specific problem was that an IN could be
turned into a "clauseless" join due to constant-propagation removing the IN's
joinclause, and if the IN's subselect involved more than one relation and
there was more than one such IN linking to the same upper relation, then the
only valid join orders involve "bushy" plans but we would fail to consider the
specific paths needed to get there. (See the example case added to the join
regression test.) On examining the code I wonder if there weren't some other
problem cases too; in particular it seems that GEQO was defending against a
different set of corner cases than the main planner was. There was also an
efficiency problem, in that when we did realize we needed a clauseless join
because of an IN, we'd consider clauseless joins against every other relation
whether this was sensible or not. It seems a better design is to use the
outer-join and in-clause lists as a backup heuristic, just as the rule of
joining only where there are joinclauses is a heuristic: we'll join two
relations if they have a usable joinclause *or* this might be necessary to
satisfy an outer-join or IN-clause join order restriction. I refactored the
code to have just one place considering this instead of three, and made sure
that it covered all the cases that any of them had been considering.
Backpatch as far as 8.1 (which has only the IN-clause form of the disease).
By rights 8.0 and 7.4 should have the bug too, but they accidentally fail
to fail, because the joininfo structure used in those releases preserves some
memory of there having once been a joinclause between the inner and outer
sides of an IN, and so it leads the code in the right direction anyway.
I'll be conservative and not touch them.
that overlap an outer join's min_righthand but aren't fully contained in it,
to support joining within the RHS after having performed an outer join that
can commute with this one. Aside from the direct fix in make_join_rel(),
fix has_join_restriction() and GEQO's desirable_join() to consider this
possibility. Per report from Ian Harding.
joinclause doesn't use any outer-side vars) requires a "bushy" plan to be
created. The normal heuristic to avoid joins with no joinclause has to be
overridden in that case. Problem is new in 8.2; before that we forced the
outer join order anyway. Per example from Teodor.
outer joins. Originally it was only looking for overlap of the righthand
side of a left join, but we have to do it on the lefthand side too.
Per example from Jean-Pierre Pelletier.
Per my recent proposal. I ended up basing the implementation on the
existing mechanism for enforcing valid join orders of IN joins --- the
rules for valid outer-join orders are somewhat similar.
comment line where output as too long, and update typedefs for /lib
directory. Also fix case where identifiers were used as variable names
in the backend, but as typedefs in ecpg (favor the backend for
indenting).
Backpatch to 8.1.X.
of a relation in a flat 'joininfo' list. The former arrangement grouped
the join clauses according to the set of unjoined relids used in each;
however, profiling on test cases involving lots of joins proves that
that data structure is a net loss. It takes more time to group the
join clauses together than is saved by avoiding duplicate tests later.
It doesn't help any that there are usually not more than one or two
clauses per group ...
a new PlannerInfo struct, which is passed around instead of the bare
Query in all the planning code. This commit is essentially just a
code-beautification exercise, but it does open the door to making
larger changes to the planner data structures without having to muck
with the widely-known Query struct.
Tom Lane
Bruce Momjian
Tomas Vondra
Robert Haas
Peter Eisentraut
Magnus Hagander