If the inner-side expressions contain PARAM_EXEC Params, we must
re-hash whenever the values of those Params change. The executor
mechanism for that exists already, but we failed to invoke it because
finalize_plan() neglected to search the Hash.hashkeys field for
Params. This allowed a previous scan's hash table to be re-used
when it should not be, leading to rows missing from the join's output.
(I believe incorrectly-included join rows are impossible however,
since checking the real hashclauses would reject false matches.)
This bug is very ancient, dating probably to d24d75ff1 of 7.4.
Sadly, this simple fix depends on the plan representational changes
made by 2abd7ae9b, so it will only work back to v12. I thought
about trying to make some kind of hack for v11, but I'm leery
of putting code significantly different from what is used in the
newer branches into a nearly-EOL branch. Seeing that the bug
escaped detection for a full twenty years, problematic cases
must be rare; so I don't feel too awful about leaving v11 as-is.
Per bug #17985 from Zuming Jiang. Back-patch to v12.
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/17985-748b66607acd432e@postgresql.org
As reported by buildfarm member conchuela, one of the regression tests
added by 558c9d7 is having some ordering issues. This commit adds an
ORDER BY clause to make the output more stable for the problematic
query.
Fix suggested by Tom Lane. The plan of the query updated still uses a
parallel hash full join.
Author: Melanie Plageman
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/623596.1684541098@sss.pgh.pa.us
Hash join tuples reuse the HOT status bit to indicate match status
during hash join execution. Correct reuse requires clearing the bit in
all tuples. Serial hash join and parallel multi-batch hash join do so
upon inserting the tuple into the hashtable. Single batch parallel hash
join and batch 0 of unexpected multi-batch hash joins forgot to do this.
It hadn't come up before because hashtable tuple match bits are only
used for right and full outer joins and parallel ROJ and FOJ were
unsupported. 11c2d6fdf5 introduced support for parallel ROJ/FOJ but
neglected to ensure the match bits were reset.
Author: Melanie Plageman <melanieplageman@gmail.com>
Reported-by: Richard Guo <guofenglinux@gmail.com>
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/flat/CAMbWs48Nde1Mv%3DBJv6_vXmRKHMuHZm2Q_g4F6Z3_pn%2B3EV6BGQ%40mail.gmail.com
Full and right outer joins were not supported in the initial
implementation of Parallel Hash Join because of deadlock hazards (see
discussion). Therefore FULL JOIN inhibited parallelism, as the other
join strategies can't do that in parallel either.
Add a new PHJ phase PHJ_BATCH_SCAN that scans for unmatched tuples on
the inner side of one batch's hash table. For now, sidestep the
deadlock problem by terminating parallelism there. The last process to
arrive at that phase emits the unmatched tuples, while others detach and
are free to go and work on other batches, if there are any, but
otherwise they finish the join early.
That unfairness is considered acceptable for now, because it's better
than no parallelism at all. The build and probe phases are run in
parallel, and the new scan-for-unmatched phase, while serial, is usually
applied to the smaller of the two relations and is either limited by
some multiple of work_mem, or it's too big and is partitioned into
batches and then the situation is improved by batch-level parallelism.
Author: Melanie Plageman <melanieplageman@gmail.com>
Author: Thomas Munro <thomas.munro@gmail.com>
Reviewed-by: Thomas Munro <thomas.munro@gmail.com>
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/CA%2BhUKG%2BA6ftXPz4oe92%2Bx8Er%2BxpGZqto70-Q_ERwRaSyA%3DafNg%40mail.gmail.com
Double the default setting for hash_mem_multiplier, from 1.0 to 2.0.
This setting makes hash-based executor nodes use twice the usual
work_mem limit.
The PostgreSQL 15 release notes should have a compatibility note about
this change.
Author: Peter Geoghegan <pg@bowt.ie>
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/CAH2-Wzndc_ROk6CY-bC6p9O53q974Y0Ey4WX8jcPbuTZYM4Q3A@mail.gmail.com
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
Tom Lane
Michael Paquier
Thomas Munro
Peter Geoghegan
Andres Freund