Run pgindent, pgperltidy, and reformat-dat-files.
This set of diffs is a bit larger than typical. We've updated to
pg_bsd_indent 2.1.2, which properly indents variable declarations that
have multi-line initialization expressions (the continuation lines are
now indented one tab stop). We've also updated to perltidy version
20230309 and changed some of its settings, which reduces its desire to
add whitespace to lines to make assignments etc. line up. Going
forward, that should make for fewer random-seeming changes to existing
code.
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/20230428092545.qfb3y5wcu4cm75ur@alvherre.pgsql
After applying outer-join identity 3 in the forward direction,
it was possible for the planner to mistakenly apply a qual clause
from above the two outer joins at the now-lower join level.
This can give the wrong answer, since a value that would get nulled
by the now-upper join might not yet be null.
To fix, when we perform such a transformation, consider that the
now-lower join hasn't really completed the outer join it's nominally
responsible for and thus its relid set should not include that OJ's
relid (nor should its output Vars have that nullingrel bit set).
Instead we add those bits when the now-upper join is performed.
The existing rules for qual placement then suffice to prevent
higher qual clauses from dropping below the now-upper join.
There are a few complications from needing to consider transitive
closures in case multiple pushdowns have happened, but all in all
it's not a very complex patch.
This is all new logic (from 2489d76c4) so no need to back-patch.
The added test cases all have the same results as in v15.
Tom Lane and Richard Guo
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/0b819232-4b50-f245-1c7d-c8c61bf41827@postgrespro.ru
This is equivalent to a revert of f193883 and fb32748, with the addition
that the declaration of the SQLValueFunction node needs to gain a couple
of node_attr for query jumbling. The performance impact of removing the
function call inlining is proving to be too huge for some workloads
where these are used. A worst-case test case of involving only simple
SELECT queries with a SQL keyword is proving to lead to a reduction of
10% in TPS via pgbench and prepared queries on a high-end machine.
None of the tests I ran back for this set of changes saw such a huge
gap, but Alexander Lakhin and Andres Freund have found that this can be
noticeable. Keeping the older performance would mean to do more
inlining in the executor when using COERCE_SQL_SYNTAX for a function
expression, similarly to what SQLValueFunction does. This requires more
redesign work and there is little time until 16beta1 is released, so for
now reverting the change is the best way forward, bringing back the
previous performance.
Bump catalog version.
Reported-by: Alexander Lakhin
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/b32bed1b-0746-9b20-1472-4bdc9ca66d52@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
As demonstrated by David Johnston, the Memoize cache hit ratio calculation
wasn't quite correct.
This change only affects the estimated hit ratio when the estimated number
of entries to cache is estimated not to fit inside the cache. For
example, if we expect 2000 distinct cache key values and only expect to be
able to cache 1000 of those at once due to memory constraints, with an
estimate of 10000 calls, if we could store all entries then the hit ratio
should be 80% to account for the first 2000 of the 10000 calls to be a
cache miss due to the value not being cached yet. If we can only store
1000 entries for each of the 2000 distinct possible values at once then
the 80% should be reduced by half to make the final estimate of 40%.
Previously, the calculation would have produced an estimated hit ratio of
30%, which wasn't correct.
Apply to master only so as not to destabilize plans in the back branches.
Reported-by: David G. Johnston
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/CAKFQuwZEmcNk3YQo2Xj4EDUOdY6qakad31rOD1Vc4q1_s68-Ew@mail.gmail.com
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/CAApHDvrV44LwiF4W_qf_RpbGYWSgp1kF=cZr+kTRRaALUfmXqw@mail.gmail.com
The Memoize executor node stores the cache key values along with the
tuple(s) which were found in the outer node which match each key value,
however, when the planner tried to estimate how many entries could be
stored in the cache, it didn't take into account that the cache key must
also be stored. In many cases, this won't make a large difference as the
key is likely small in comparison to the tuple(s) being stored, however,
it's not impossible to craft cases where the key could take more memory
than the tuple(s) stored for it.
Here we adjust the planner so it takes into account the estimated amount
of memory to store the cache key. Effectively, this change will reduce
the estimated cache hit ratio when it's thought that not all items will
fit in the cache, thus Memoize will become more expensive in such cases.
The executor already takes into account the memory consumed by the cache
key, so here we only need to adjust the planner.
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/CAApHDvqGErGuyBfQvBQrTCHDbzLTqoiW=_G9sOzeFxWEc_7auA@mail.gmail.com
Remove RestrictInfo.nullable_relids, along with a good deal of
infrastructure that calculated it. One use-case for it was in
join_clause_is_movable_to, but we can now replace that usage with
a check to see if the clause's relids include any outer join
that can null the target relation. The other use-case was in
join_clause_is_movable_into, but that test can just be dropped
entirely now that the clause's relids include outer joins.
Furthermore, join_clause_is_movable_into should now be
accurate enough that it will accept anything returned by
generate_join_implied_equalities, so we can restore the Assert
that was diked out in commit 95f4e59c3.
Remove the outerjoin_delayed mechanism. We needed this before to
prevent quals from getting evaluated below outer joins that should
null some of their vars. Now that we consider varnullingrels while
placing quals, that's taken care of automatically, so throw the
whole thing away.
Teach remove_useless_result_rtes to also remove useless FromExprs.
Having done that, the delay_upper_joins flag serves no purpose any
more and we can remove it, largely reverting 11086f2f2.
Use constant TRUE for "dummy" clauses when throwing back outer joins.
This improves on a hack I introduced in commit 6a6522529. If we
have a left-join clause l.x = r.y, and a WHERE clause l.x = constant,
we generate r.y = constant and then don't really have a need for the
join clause. But we must throw the join clause back anyway after
marking it redundant, so that the join search heuristics won't think
this is a clauseless join and avoid it. That was a kluge introduced
under time pressure, and after looking at it I thought of a better
way: let's just introduce constant-TRUE "join clauses" instead,
and get rid of them at the end. This improves the generated plans for
such cases by not having to test a redundant join clause. We can also
get rid of the ugly hack used to mark such clauses as redundant for
selectivity estimation.
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
1349d279 added query planner support to allow more efficient execution of
aggregate functions which have an ORDER BY or a DISTINCT clause. Prior to
that commit, the planner would only request that the lower planner produce
a plan with the order required for the GROUP BY clause and it would be
left up to nodeAgg.c to perform the final sort of records within each
group so that the aggregate transition functions were called in the
correct order. Now that the planner requests the lower planner produce a
plan with the GROUP BY and the ORDER BY / DISTINCT aggregates in mind,
there is the possibility that the planner chooses a plan which could be
less efficient than what would have been produced before 1349d279.
While developing 1349d279, I had in mind that Incremental Sort would help
us in cases where an index exists only on the GROUP BY column(s).
Incremental Sort would just replace the implicit tuplesorts which are
being performed in nodeAgg.c. However, because the planner has the
flexibility to instead choose a plan which just performs a full sort on
both the GROUP BY and ORDER BY / DISTINCT aggregate columns, there is
potential for the planner to make a bad choice. The costing for
Incremental Sort is not perfect as it assumes an even distribution of rows
to sort within each sort group.
Here we add an escape hatch in the form of the enable_presorted_aggregate
GUC. This will allow users to get the pre-PG16 behavior in cases where
they have no other means to convince the query planner to produce a plan
which only sorts on the GROUP BY column(s).
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/CAApHDvr1Sm+g9hbv4REOVuvQKeDWXcKUAhmbK5K+dfun0s9CvA@mail.gmail.com
When incremental sorts were added in v13 a 1.5x pessimism factor was added
to the cost modal. Seemingly this was done because the cost modal only
has an estimate of the total number of input rows and the number of
presorted groups. It assumes that the input rows will be evenly
distributed throughout the presorted groups. The 1.5x pessimism factor
was added to slightly reduce the likelihood of incremental sorts being
used in the hope to avoid performance regressions where an incremental
sort plan was picked and turned out slower due to a large skew in the
number of rows in the presorted groups.
An additional quirk with the path generation code meant that we could
consider both a sort and an incremental sort on paths with presorted keys.
This meant that with the pessimism factor, it was possible that we opted
to perform a sort rather than an incremental sort when the given path had
presorted keys.
Here we remove the 1.5x pessimism factor to allow incremental sorts to
have a fairer chance at being chosen against a full sort.
Previously we would generally create a sort path on the cheapest input
path (if that wasn't sorted already) and incremental sort paths on any
path which had presorted keys. This meant that if the cheapest input path
wasn't completely sorted but happened to have presorted keys, we would
create a full sort path *and* an incremental sort path on that input path.
Here we change this logic so that if there are presorted keys, we only
create an incremental sort path, and create sort paths only when a full
sort is required.
Both the removal of the cost pessimism factor and the changes made to the
path generation make it more likely that incremental sorts will now be
chosen. That, of course, as with teaching the planner any new tricks,
means an increased likelihood that the planner will perform an incremental
sort when it's not the best method. Our standard escape hatch for these
cases is an enable_* GUC. enable_incremental_sort already exists for
this.
This came out of a report by Pavel Luzanov where he mentioned that the
master branch was choosing to perform a Seq Scan -> Sort -> Group
Aggregate for his query with an ORDER BY aggregate function. The v15 plan
for his query performed an Index Scan -> Group Aggregate, of course, the
aggregate performed the final sort internally in nodeAgg.c for the
aggregate's ORDER BY. The ideal plan would have been to use the index,
which provided partially sorted input then use an incremental sort to
provide the aggregate with the sorted input. This was not being chosen
due to the pessimism in the incremental sort cost modal, so here we remove
that and rationalize the path generation so that sort and incremental sort
plans don't have to needlessly compete. We assume that it's senseless
to ever use a full sort on a given input path where an incremental sort
can be performed.
Reported-by: Pavel Luzanov
Reviewed-by: Richard Guo
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/9f61ddbf-2989-1536-b31e-6459370a6baa%40postgrespro.ru
This switch impacts 9 patterns related to a SQL-mandated special syntax
for function calls:
- LOCALTIME [ ( typmod ) ]
- LOCALTIMESTAMP [ ( typmod ) ]
- CURRENT_TIME [ ( typmod ) ]
- CURRENT_TIMESTAMP [ ( typmod ) ]
- CURRENT_DATE
Five new entries are added to pg_proc to compensate the removal of
SQLValueFunction to provide backward-compatibility and making this
change transparent for the end-user (for example for the attribute
generated when a keyword is specified in a SELECT or in a FROM clause
without an alias, or when specifying something else than an Iconst to
the parser).
The parser included a set of checks coming from the files in charge of
holding the C functions used for the SQLValueFunction calls (as of
transformSQLValueFunction()), which are now moved within each function's
execution path, so this reduces the dependencies between the execution
and the parsing steps. As of this change, all the SQL keywords use the
same paths for their work, relying only on COERCE_SQL_SYNTAX. Like
fb32748, no performance difference has been noticed, while the perf
profiles get reduced with ExecEvalSQLValueFunction() gone.
Bump catalog version.
Reviewed-by: Corey Huinker, Ted Yu
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/YzaG3MoryCguUOym@paquier.xyz
In a similar effort to f01592f91, here we mostly rename shadowed local
variables to remove the warnings produced when compiling with
-Wshadow=compatible-local.
This fixes 63 warnings and leaves just 5.
Author: Justin Pryzby, David Rowley
Reviewed-by: Justin Pryzby
Discussion https://postgr.es/m/20220817145434.GC26426%40telsasoft.com
This reverts commit db0d67db24 and
several follow-on fixes. The idea of making a cost-based choice
of the order of the sorting columns is not fundamentally unsound,
but it requires cost information and data statistics that we don't
really have. For example, relying on procost to distinguish the
relative costs of different sort comparators is pretty pointless
so long as most such comparator functions are labeled with cost 1.0.
Moreover, estimating the number of comparisons done by Quicksort
requires more than just an estimate of the number of distinct values
in the input: you also need some idea of the sizes of the larger
groups, if you want an estimate that's good to better than a factor of
three or so. That's data that's often unknown or not very reliable.
Worse, to arrive at estimates of the number of calls made to the
lower-order-column comparison functions, the code needs to make
estimates of the numbers of distinct values of multiple columns,
which are necessarily even less trustworthy than per-column stats.
Even if all the inputs are perfectly reliable, the cost algorithm
as-implemented cannot offer useful information about how to order
sorting columns beyond the point at which the average group size
is estimated to drop to 1.
Close inspection of the code added by db0d67db2 shows that there
are also multiple small bugs. These could have been fixed, but
there's not much point if we don't trust the estimates to be
accurate in-principle.
Finally, the changes in cost_sort's behavior made for very large
changes (often a factor of 2 or so) in the cost estimates for all
sorting operations, not only those for multi-column GROUP BY.
That naturally changes plan choices in many situations, and there's
precious little evidence to show that the changes are for the better.
Given the above doubts about whether the new estimates are really
trustworthy, it's hard to summon much confidence that these changes
are better on the average.
Since we're hard up against the release deadline for v15, let's
revert these changes for now. We can always try again later.
Note: in v15, I left T_PathKeyInfo in place in nodes.h even though
it's unreferenced. Removing it would be an ABI break, and it seems
a bit late in the release cycle for that.
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/TYAPR01MB586665EB5FB2C3807E893941F5579@TYAPR01MB5866.jpnprd01.prod.outlook.com
The reverts the following and makes some associated cleanups:
commit f79b803dc: Common SQL/JSON clauses
commit f4fb45d15: SQL/JSON constructors
commit 5f0adec25: Make STRING an unreserved_keyword.
commit 33a377608: IS JSON predicate
commit 1a36bc9db: SQL/JSON query functions
commit 606948b05: SQL JSON functions
commit 49082c2cc: RETURNING clause for JSON() and JSON_SCALAR()
commit 4e34747c8: JSON_TABLE
commit fadb48b00: PLAN clauses for JSON_TABLE
commit 2ef6f11b0: Reduce running time of jsonb_sqljson test
commit 14d3f24fa: Further improve jsonb_sqljson parallel test
commit a6baa4bad: Documentation for SQL/JSON features
commit b46bcf7a4: Improve readability of SQL/JSON documentation.
commit 112fdb352: Fix finalization for json_objectagg and friends
commit fcdb35c32: Fix transformJsonBehavior
commit 4cd8717af: Improve a couple of sql/json error messages
commit f7a605f63: Small cleanups in SQL/JSON code
commit 9c3d25e17: Fix JSON_OBJECTAGG uniquefying bug
commit a79153b7a: Claim SQL standard compliance for SQL/JSON features
commit a1e7616d6: Rework SQL/JSON documentation
commit 8d9f9634e: Fix errors in copyfuncs/equalfuncs support for JSON node types.
commit 3c633f32b: Only allow returning string types or bytea from json_serialize
commit 67b26703b: expression eval: Fix EEOP_JSON_CONSTRUCTOR and EEOP_JSONEXPR size.
The release notes are also adjusted.
Backpatch to release 15.
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/40d2c882-bcac-19a9-754d-4299e1d87ac7@postgresql.org
In a similar effort to f01592f91, here we're targetting fixing the
warnings that -Wshadow=compatible-local produces that we can fix by moving
a variable to an inner scope to stop that variable from being shadowed by
another variable declared somewhere later in the function.
All of the warnings being fixed here are changing the scope of variables
which are being used as an iterator for a "for" loop. In each instance,
the fix happens to be changing the for loop to use the C99 type
initialization. Much of this code likely pre-dates our use of C99.
Reducing the scope of the outer scoped variable seems like the safest way
to fix these. Renaming seems more likely to risk patches using the wrong
variable. Reducing the scope is more likely to result in a compilation
failure after applying some future patch rather than introducing bugs with
it.
By my count, this takes the warning count from 129 down to 114.
Author: Justin Pryzby
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/CAApHDvrwLGBP%2BYw9vriayyf%3DXR4uPWP5jr6cQhP9au_kaDUhbA%40mail.gmail.com
Up to now, callers of find_placeholder_info() were required to pass
a flag indicating if it's OK to make a new PlaceHolderInfo. That'd
be fine if the callers had free choice, but they do not. Once we
begin deconstruct_jointree() it's no longer OK to make more PHIs;
while callers before that always want to create a PHI if it's not
there already. So there's no freedom of action, only the opportunity
to cause bugs by creating PHIs too late. Let's get rid of that in
favor of adding a state flag PlannerInfo.placeholdersFrozen, which
we can set at the point where it's no longer OK to make more PHIs.
This patch also simplifies a couple of call sites that were using
complicated logic to avoid calling find_placeholder_info() as much
as possible. Now that that lookup is O(1) thanks to the previous
commit, the extra bitmap manipulations are probably a net negative.
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/1405792.1660677844@sss.pgh.pa.us
The standard way to check for list emptiness is to compare the
List pointer to NIL; our list code goes out of its way to ensure
that that is the only representation of an empty list. (An
acceptable alternative is a plain boolean test for non-null
pointer, but explicit mention of NIL is usually preferable.)
Various places didn't get that memo and expressed the condition
with list_length(), which might not be so bad except that there
were such a variety of ways to check it exactly: equal to zero,
less than or equal to zero, less than one, yadda yadda. In the
name of code readability, let's standardize all those spellings
as "list == NIL" or "list != NIL". (There's probably some
microscopic efficiency gain too, though few of these look to be
at all performance-critical.)
A very small number of cases were left as-is because they seemed
more consistent with other adjacent list_length tests that way.
Peter Smith, with bikeshedding from a number of us
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/CAHut+PtQYe+ENX5KrONMfugf0q6NHg4hR5dAhqEXEc2eefFeig@mail.gmail.com
setrefs.c contains logic to discard no-op SubqueryScan nodes, that is,
ones that have no qual to check and copy the input targetlist unchanged.
(Formally it's not very nice to be applying such optimizations so late
in the planner, but there are practical reasons for it; mostly that we
can't unify relids between the subquery and the parent query until we
flatten the rangetable during setrefs.c.) This behavior falsifies our
previous cost estimates, since we would've charged cpu_tuple_cost per
row just to pass data through the node. Most of the time that's little
enough to not matter, but there are cases where this effect visibly
changes the plan compared to what you would've gotten with no
sub-select.
To improve the situation, make the callers of cost_subqueryscan tell
it whether they think the targetlist is trivial. cost_subqueryscan
already has the qual list, so it can check the other half of the
condition easily. It could make its own determination of tlist
triviality too, but doing so would be repetitive (for callers that
may call it several times) or unnecessarily expensive (for callers
that can determine this more cheaply than a general test would do).
This isn't a 100% solution, because createplan.c also does things
that can falsify any earlier estimate of whether the tlist is
trivial. However, it fixes nearly all cases in practice, if results
for the regression tests are anything to go by.
setrefs.c also contains logic to discard no-op Append and MergeAppend
nodes. We did have knowledge of that behavior at costing time, but
somebody failed to update it when a check on parallel-awareness was
added to the setrefs.c logic. Fix that while we're here.
These changes result in two minor changes in query plans shown in
our regression tests. Neither is relevant to the purposes of its
test case AFAICT.
Patch by me; thanks to Richard Guo for review.
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/2581077.1651703520@sss.pgh.pa.us
This replaces all MemSet() calls with struct initialization where that
is easily and obviously possible. (For example, some cases have to
worry about padding bits, so I left those.)
(The same could be done with appropriate memset() calls, but this
patch is part of an effort to phase out MemSet(), so it doesn't touch
memset() calls.)
Reviewed-by: Ranier Vilela <ranier.vf@gmail.com>
Reviewed-by: Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@alvh.no-ip.org>
Discussion: https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/9847b13c-b785-f4e2-75c3-12ec77a3b05c@enterprisedb.com
No members of the buildfarm are using this version of Visual Studio,
resulting in all the code cleaned up here as being mostly dead, and
VS2017 is the oldest version still supported.
More versions could be cut, but the gain would be minimal, while
removing only VS2013 has the advantage to remove from the core code all
the dependencies on the value defined by _MSC_VER, where compatibility
tweaks have accumulated across the years mostly around locales and
strtof(), so that's a nice isolated cleanup.
Note that this commit additionally allows a revert of 3154e16. The
versions of Visual Studio now supported range from 2015 to 2022.
Author: Michael Paquier
Reviewed-by: Juan José Santamaría Flecha, Tom Lane, Thomas Munro, Justin
Pryzby
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/YoH2IMtxcS3ncWn+@paquier.xyz
Several places in the planner tried to clamp a double value to fit
in a "long" by doing
(long) Min(x, (double) LONG_MAX);
This is subtly incorrect, because it casts LONG_MAX to double and
potentially back again. If long is 64 bits then the double value
is inexact, and the platform might round it up to LONG_MAX+1
resulting in an overflow and an undesirably negative output.
While it's not hard to rewrite the expression into a safe form,
let's put it into a common function to reduce the risk of someone
doing it wrong in future.
In principle this is a bug fix, but since the problem could only
manifest with group count estimates exceeding 2^63, it seems unlikely
that anyone has actually hit this or will do so anytime soon. We're
fixing it mainly to satisfy fuzzer-type tools. That being the case,
a HEAD-only fix seems sufficient.
Andrey Lepikhov
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/ebbc2efb-7ef9-bf2f-1ada-d6ec48f70e58@postgrespro.ru
SubqueryScan was always getting labeled with a rowcount estimate
appropriate for non-parallel cases. However, nodes that are
underneath a Gather should be treated as processing only one
worker's share of the rows, whether the particular node is explicitly
parallel-aware or not. Most non-scan-level node types get this
right automatically because they base their rowcount estimate on
that of their input sub-Path(s). But SubqueryScan didn't do that,
instead using the whole-relation rowcount estimate as if it were
a non-parallel-aware scan node. If there is a parallel-aware node
below the SubqueryScan, this is wrong, and it results in inflating
the cost estimates for nodes above the SubqueryScan, which can cause
us to not choose a parallel plan, or choose a silly one --- as indeed
is visible in the one regression test whose results change with this
patch. (Although that plan tree appears to contain no SubqueryScans,
there were some in it before setrefs.c deleted them.)
To fix, use path->subpath->rows not baserel->tuples as the number
of input tuples we'll process. This requires estimating the quals'
selectivity afresh, which is slightly annoying; but it shouldn't
really add much cost thanks to the caching done in RestrictInfo.
This is pretty clearly a bug fix, but I'll refrain from back-patching
as people might not appreciate plan choices changing in stable branches.
The fact that it took us this long to identify the bug suggests that
it's not a major problem.
Per report from bucoo, though this is not his proposed patch.
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/202204121457159307248@sohu.com
When evaluating a query with a multi-column GROUP BY clause using sort,
the cost may be heavily dependent on the order in which the keys are
compared when building the groups. Grouping does not imply any ordering,
so we're allowed to compare the keys in arbitrary order, and a Hash Agg
leverages this. But for Group Agg, we simply compared keys in the order
as specified in the query. This commit explores alternative ordering of
the keys, trying to find a cheaper one.
In principle, we might generate grouping paths for all permutations of
the keys, and leave the rest to the optimizer. But that might get very
expensive, so we try to pick only a couple interesting orderings based
on both local and global information.
When planning the grouping path, we explore statistics (number of
distinct values, cost of the comparison function) for the keys and
reorder them to minimize comparison costs. Intuitively, it may be better
to perform more expensive comparisons (for complex data types etc.)
last, because maybe the cheaper comparisons will be enough. Similarly,
the higher the cardinality of a key, the lower the probability we’ll
need to compare more keys. The patch generates and costs various
orderings, picking the cheapest ones.
The ordering of group keys may interact with other parts of the query,
some of which may not be known while planning the grouping. E.g. there
may be an explicit ORDER BY clause, or some other ordering-dependent
operation, higher up in the query, and using the same ordering may allow
using either incremental sort or even eliminate the sort entirely.
The patch generates orderings and picks those minimizing the comparison
cost (for various pathkeys), and then adds orderings that might be
useful for operations higher up in the plan (ORDER BY, etc.). Finally,
it always keeps the ordering specified in the query, on the assumption
the user might have additional insights.
This introduces a new GUC enable_group_by_reordering, so that the
optimization may be disabled if needed.
The original patch was proposed by Teodor Sigaev, and later improved and
reworked by Dmitry Dolgov. Reviews by a number of people, including me,
Andrey Lepikhov, Claudio Freire, Ibrar Ahmed and Zhihong Yu.
Author: Dmitry Dolgov, Teodor Sigaev, Tomas Vondra
Reviewed-by: Tomas Vondra, Andrey Lepikhov, Claudio Freire, Ibrar Ahmed, Zhihong Yu
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/7c79e6a5-8597-74e8-0671-1c39d124c9d6%40sigaev.ru
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/CA%2Bq6zcW_4o2NC0zutLkOJPsFt80megSpX_dVRo6GK9PC-Jx_Ag%40mail.gmail.com
This introduces the SQL/JSON functions for querying JSON data using
jsonpath expressions. The functions are:
JSON_EXISTS()
JSON_QUERY()
JSON_VALUE()
All of these functions only operate on jsonb. The workaround for now is
to cast the argument to jsonb.
JSON_EXISTS() tests if the jsonpath expression applied to the jsonb
value yields any values. JSON_VALUE() must return a single value, and an
error occurs if it tries to return multiple values. JSON_QUERY() must
return a json object or array, and there are various WRAPPER options for
handling scalar or multi-value results. Both these functions have
options for handling EMPTY and ERROR conditions.
Nikita Glukhov
Reviewers have included (in no particular order) Andres Freund, Alexander
Korotkov, Pavel Stehule, Andrew Alsup, Erik Rijkers, Zihong Yu,
Himanshu Upadhyaya, Daniel Gustafsson, Justin Pryzby.
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/cd0bb935-0158-78a7-08b5-904886deac4b@postgrespro.ru
Up to now, the planner estimated the size of a recursive query's
worktable as 10 times the size of the non-recursive term. It's hard
to see how to do significantly better than that automatically, but
we can give users control over the multiplier to allow tuning for
specific use-cases. The default behavior remains the same.
Simon Riggs
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/CANbhV-EuaLm4H3g0+BSTYHEGxJj3Kht0R+rJ8vT57Dejnh=_nA@mail.gmail.com
The planner needs to treat GroupingFunc like Aggref for many purposes,
in particular with respect to processing of the argument expressions,
which are not to be evaluated at runtime. A few places hadn't gotten
that memo, notably including subselect.c's processing of outer-level
aggregates. This resulted in assertion failures or wrong plans for
cases in which a GROUPING() construct references an outer aggregation
level.
Also fix missing special cases for GroupingFunc in cost_qual_eval
(resulting in wrong cost estimates for GROUPING(), although it's
not clear that that would affect plan shapes in practice) and in
ruleutils.c (resulting in excess parentheses in pretty-print mode).
Per bug #17088 from Yaoguang Chen. Back-patch to all supported
branches.
Richard Guo, Tom Lane
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/17088-e33882b387de7f5c@postgresql.org
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
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
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 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
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
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
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
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
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
Tom Lane
Michael Paquier
David Rowley
Bruce Momjian
Andrew Dunstan
Peter Eisentraut
Tomas Vondra
Etsuro Fujita
Amit Kapila
Heikki Linnakangas
Jeff Davis