In 5f32b29c18 I changed the creation of HashState.hashkeys to
actually use HashState as the parent (instead of HashJoinState, which
was incorrect, as they were executed below HashState), to fix the
problem of hashkeys expressions otherwise relying on slot types
appropriate for HashJoinState, rather than HashState as would be
correct. That reliance was only introduced in 12, which is why it
previously worked to use HashJoinState as the parent (although I'd be
unsurprised if there were problematic cases).
Unfortunately that's not a sufficient solution, because before this
commit, the to-be-hashed expressions referenced inner/outer as
appropriate for the HashJoin, not Hash. That didn't have obvious bad
consequences, because the slots containing the tuples were put into
ecxt_innertuple when hashing a tuple for HashState (even though Hash
doesn't have an inner plan).
There are less common cases where this can cause visible problems
however (rather than just confusion when inspecting such executor
trees). E.g. "ERROR: bogus varno: 65000", when explaining queries
containing a HashJoin where the subsidiary Hash node's hash keys
reference a subplan. While normally hashkeys aren't displayed by
EXPLAIN, if one of those expressions references a subplan, that
subplan may be printed as part of the Hash node - which then failed
because an inner plan was referenced, and Hash doesn't have that.
It seems quite possible that there's other broken cases, too.
Fix the problem by properly splitting the expression for the HashJoin
and Hash nodes at plan time, and have them reference the proper
subsidiary node. While other workarounds are possible, fixing this
correctly seems easy enough. It was a pretty ugly hack to have
ExecInitHashJoin put the expression into the already initialized
HashState, in the first place.
I decided to not just split inner/outer hashkeys inside
make_hashjoin(), but also to separate out hashoperators and
hashcollations at plan time. Otherwise we would have ended up having
two very similar loops, one at plan time and the other during executor
startup. The work seems to more appropriately belong to plan time,
anyway.
Reported-By: Nikita Glukhov, Alexander Korotkov
Author: Andres Freund
Reviewed-By: Tom Lane, in an earlier version
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/CAPpHfdvGVegF_TKKRiBrSmatJL2dR9uwFCuR+teQ_8tEXU8mxg@mail.gmail.com
Backpatch: 12-
Otherwise the regressplans.sh tests generate extremely slow nested
loop joins. Back-patch to 11 where the hash join tests came in.
Reported-by: Michael Paquier
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/20190708055256.GB2709%40paquier.xyz
The point of this change is to increase the potential for parallelism
while running the core regression tests. Most people these days are
using parallel testing modes on multi-core machines, so we might as
well try a bit harder to keep multiple cores busy. Hence, a test that
runs much longer than others in its parallel group is a candidate to
be sub-divided.
In this patch, create_index.sql and join.sql are split up.
I haven't changed the content of the tests in any way, just
moved them.
I moved create_index.sql's SP-GiST-related tests into a new script
create_index_spgist, and moved its btree multilevel page deletion test
over to the existing script btree_index. (btree_index is a more natural
home for that test, and it's shorter than others in its parallel group,
so this doesn't hurt total runtime of that group.) There might be
room for more aggressive splitting of create_index, but this is enough
to improve matters considerably.
Likewise, I moved join.sql's "exercises for the hash join code" into
a new file join_hash. Those exercises contributed three-quarters of
the script's runtime. Which might well be excessive ... but for the
moment, I'm satisfied with shoving them into a different parallel
group, where they can share runtime with the roughly-equally-lengthy
gist test.
(Note for anybody following along at home: there are interesting
interactions between the runtimes of create_index and anything running
in parallel with it, because the tests of CREATE INDEX CONCURRENTLY
in that file will repeatedly block waiting for concurrent transactions
to commit. As committed in this patch, create_index and
create_index_spgist have roughly equal runtimes, but that's mostly an
artifact of forced synchronization of the CONCURRENTLY tests; when run
serially, create_index is much faster. A followup patch will reduce
the runtime of create_index_spgist and thereby also create_index.)
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/735.1554935715@sss.pgh.pa.us
Andres Freund
Thomas Munro
Tom Lane