The original code was unable to prune partitions that could not possibly
contain NULL values, when the query specified less than all columns in a
multicolumn partition key. Reorder the if-tests so that it is, and add
more commentary and regression tests.
Reported-by: Ashutosh Bapat <ashutosh.bapat@enterprisedb.com>
Co-authored-by: Dilip Kumar <dilipbalaut@gmail.com>
Co-authored-by: Amit Langote <Langote_Amit_f8@lab.ntt.co.jp>
Co-authored-by: Álvaro Herrera <alvherre@alvh.no-ip.org>
Reviewed-by: Ashutosh Bapat <ashutosh.bapat@enterprisedb.com>
Reviewed-by: amul sul <sulamul@gmail.com>
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/CAFjFpRc7qjLUfXLVBBC_HAnx644sjTYM=qVoT3TJ840HPbsTXw@mail.gmail.com
We fail to handle polymorphic types properly when they are used as
partition keys: we were unnecessarily adding a RelabelType node on top,
which confuses code examining the nodes. In particular, this makes
predtest.c-based partition pruning not to work, and ruleutils.c to emit
expressions that are uglier than needed. Fix it by not adding RelabelType
when not needed.
In master/11 the new pruning code is separate so it doesn't suffer from
this problem, since we already fixed it (in essentially the same way) in
e5dcbb88a1, which also added a few tests; back-patch those tests to
pg10 also. But since UPDATE/DELETE still uses predtest.c in pg11, this
change improves partitioning for those cases too. Add tests for this.
The ruleutils.c behavior change is relevant in pg11/master too.
Co-authored-by: Amit Langote <Langote_Amit_f8@lab.ntt.co.jp>
Co-authored-by: Álvaro Herrera <alvherre@alvh.no-ip.org>
Reviewed-by: Álvaro Herrera <alvherre@alvh.no-ip.org>
Reviewed-by: Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com>
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/54745d13-7ed4-54ac-97d8-ea1eec95ae25@lab.ntt.co.jp
Since their introduction, partition trees have been a bit lossy
regarding temporary relations. Inheritance trees respect the following
patterns:
1) a child relation can be temporary if the parent is permanent.
2) a child relation can be temporary if the parent is temporary.
3) a child relation cannot be permanent if the parent is temporary.
4) The use of temporary relations also imply that when both parent and
child need to be from the same sessions.
Partitions share many similar patterns with inheritance, however the
handling of the partition bounds make the situation a bit tricky for
case 1) as the partition code bases a lot of its lookup code upon
PartitionDesc which does not really look after relpersistence. This
causes for example a temporary partition created by session A to be
visible by another session B, preventing this session B to create an
extra partition which overlaps with the temporary one created by A with
a non-intuitive error message. There could be use-cases where mixing
permanent partitioned tables with temporary partitions make sense, but
that would be a new feature. Partitions respect 2), 3) and 4) already.
It is a bit depressing to see those error checks happening in
MergeAttributes() whose purpose is different, but that's left as future
refactoring work.
Back-patch down to 10, which is where partitioning has been introduced,
except that default partitions do not apply there. Documentation also
includes limitations related to the use of temporary tables with
partition trees.
Reported-by: David Rowley
Author: Amit Langote, Michael Paquier
Reviewed-by: Ashutosh Bapat, Amit Langote, Michael Paquier
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/CAKJS1f94Ojk0og9GMkRHGt8wHTW=ijq5KzJKuoBoqWLwSVwGmw@mail.gmail.com
The previous coding just ignored pruning constraints that compare a
partition key to a null-valued expression. This is silly, since really
what we can do there is conclude that all partitions are rejected: the
pruning operator is known strict so the comparison must always fail.
This also fixes the logic to not ignore constisnull for a Const comparison
value. That's probably an unreachable case, since the planner would
normally have simplified away a strict operator with a constant-null input.
But this code has no business assuming that.
David Rowley, per a gripe from me
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/26279.1528670981@sss.pgh.pa.us
The initial coding of the run-time-pruning feature only coped with cases
where the partition key(s) are compared to Params. That is a bit silly;
we can allow it to work with any non-Var-containing stable expression, as
long as we take special care with expressions containing PARAM_EXEC Params.
The code is hardly any longer this way, and it's considerably clearer
(IMO at least). Per gripe from Pavel Stehule.
David Rowley, whacked around a bit by me
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/CAFj8pRBjrufA3ocDm8o4LPGNye9Y+pm1b9kCwode4X04CULG3g@mail.gmail.com
match_clause_to_partition_key failed to consider COERCION_PATH_ARRAYCOERCE
cases in scalar-op-array expressions, so it was possible to crash the
server easily. To handle this case properly (ie. prune partitions) we
would need to run a bit of executor code during planning. Maybe it can
be improved, but for now let's just not crash. Add a test case that
used to trigger the crash.
Author: Michaël Paquier
match_clause_to_partition_key failed to indicate that operators that
don't have a commutator in a btree opclass are unsupported. It is
possible for this to cause a crash later if such an operator is used in
a scalar-op-array expression. Add a test case that used to the crash.
Author: Amit Langote
One caller of gen_partprune_steps_internal in
match_clause_to_partition_key was too optimistic about the former never
returning an empty step list. Rid it of its innocence. (Having fixed
the bug above, I no longer know how to exploit this, so no test case for
it, but it remained a bug.) Revise code flow a little bit, for
succintness.
Author: Álvaro Herrera
Reported-by: Marina Polyakova
Reviewed-by: Michaël Paquier
Reviewed-by: Amit Langote
Reviewed-by: Álvaro Herrera
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/ff8f9bfa485ff961d6bb43e54120485b@postgrespro.ru
This controls both plan-time and execution-time new-style partition
pruning. While finer-grain control is possible (maybe using an enum GUC
instead of boolean), there doesn't seem to be much need for that.
This new parameter controls partition pruning for all queries:
trivially, SELECT queries that affect partitioned tables are naturally
under its control since they are using the new technology. However,
while UPDATE/DELETE queries do not use the new code, we make the new GUC
control their behavior also (stealing control from
constraint_exclusion), because it is more natural, and it leads to a
more natural transition to the future in which those queries will also
use the new pruning code.
Constraint exclusion still controls pruning for regular inheritance
situations (those not involving partitioned tables).
Author: David Rowley
Review: Amit Langote, Ashutosh Bapat, Justin Pryzby, David G. Johnston
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/CAKJS1f_0HwsxJG9m+nzU+CizxSdGtfe6iF_ykPYBiYft302DCw@mail.gmail.com
5c067521 erroneously had coded bms_prev_member assuming that a bitmapword
would always hold 32 bits and started it's search on what it thought was the
highest 8-bits of the word. This was not the case if bitmapwords were 64
bits.
In passing add a test to exercise this function a little. Previously there was
no coverage at all.
David Rowly
Amit Langote reported that partition prune was unable to work with
arrays, enums, etc, which led him to research the appropriate way to
match query clauses to partition keys: instead of searching for an exact
match of the expression's type, it is better to rely on the fact that
the expression qual has already been resolved to a specific operator,
and that the partition key is linked to a specific operator family.
With that info, it's possible to figure out the strategy and comparison
function to use for the pruning clause in a manner that works reliably
for pseudo-types also.
Include new test cases that demonstrate pruning where pseudotypes are
involved.
Author: Amit Langote, Álvaro Herrera
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/2b02f1e9-9812-9c41-972d-517bdc0f815d@lab.ntt.co.jp
coverage report indicated that mark_invalid_subplans_as_finished() and
nearby code was not getting exercised by any tests. Add a new one which
has execution-time Params rather than only external Params to fix this.
In passing, David noticed that ab_q6 tests were not actually required to
have a generic plan. The tests were testing exec Params not external
Params, so there was no need for the PREPARE. Remove the PREPARE,
making these plain queries. (The new queries are called from
explain_parallel_append, which may be unnecessary since they don't
actually have a Parallel Append node, just an Append. But it doesn't
seem to hurt anything, either.)
Author: David Rowley
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/CAKJS1f--hopb6JBSDY4wiXTS3ZcDp-wparXjTQ1nzNdBa04Fog@mail.gmail.com
This reverts commit 4d0f6d3f20 ("Attempt to stabilize partition_prune
test output (2)"), and attempts to stabilize the test by using string
replacement to hide any loop count difference in parallel nodes.
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/4475.1523628300@sss.pgh.pa.us
This custom opclass was already in use in other tests -- defined
independently in every such file. Move the definition to the earliest
test that uses it, and keep it around so that later tests can reuse it.
Use it in the tests for pruning of hash partitioning, and since this
makes the second expected file unnecessary, put those tests back in
partition_prune.sql whence they sprang.
Author: Amit Langote
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/CA%2BTgmoZ0D5kJbt8eKXtvVdvTcGGWn6ehWCRSZbWytD-uzH92mQ%40mail.gmail.com
Existing partition pruning is only able to work at plan time, for query
quals that appear in the parsed query. This is good but limiting, as
there can be parameters that appear later that can be usefully used to
further prune partitions.
This commit adds support for pruning subnodes of Append which cannot
possibly contain any matching tuples, during execution, by evaluating
Params to determine the minimum set of subnodes that can possibly match.
We support more than just simple Params in WHERE clauses. Support
additionally includes:
1. Parameterized Nested Loop Joins: The parameter from the outer side of the
join can be used to determine the minimum set of inner side partitions to
scan.
2. Initplans: Once an initplan has been executed we can then determine which
partitions match the value from the initplan.
Partition pruning is performed in two ways. When Params external to the plan
are found to match the partition key we attempt to prune away unneeded Append
subplans during the initialization of the executor. This allows us to bypass
the initialization of non-matching subplans meaning they won't appear in the
EXPLAIN or EXPLAIN ANALYZE output.
For parameters whose value is only known during the actual execution
then the pruning of these subplans must wait. Subplans which are
eliminated during this stage of pruning are still visible in the EXPLAIN
output. In order to determine if pruning has actually taken place, the
EXPLAIN ANALYZE must be viewed. If a certain Append subplan was never
executed due to the elimination of the partition then the execution
timing area will state "(never executed)". Whereas, if, for example in
the case of parameterized nested loops, the number of loops stated in
the EXPLAIN ANALYZE output for certain subplans may appear lower than
others due to the subplan having been scanned fewer times. This is due
to the list of matching subnodes having to be evaluated whenever a
parameter which was found to match the partition key changes.
This commit required some additional infrastructure that permits the
building of a data structure which is able to perform the translation of
the matching partition IDs, as returned by get_matching_partitions, into
the list index of a subpaths list, as exist in node types such as
Append, MergeAppend and ModifyTable. This allows us to translate a list
of clauses into a Bitmapset of all the subpath indexes which must be
included to satisfy the clause list.
Author: David Rowley, based on an earlier effort by Beena Emerson
Reviewers: Amit Langote, Robert Haas, Amul Sul, Rajkumar Raghuwanshi,
Jesper Pedersen
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/CAOG9ApE16ac-_VVZVvv0gePSgkg_BwYEV1NBqZFqDR2bBE0X0A@mail.gmail.com
The tests added as part of 9fdb675fc5 yield differing results
depending on endianess, causing buildfarm failures. As the differences
are expected, split the hash partitioning tests into a different file
and maintain alternative output. The separate file is so the amount of
duplicated output is reduced.
David produced the alternative output without a machine to test on, so
it's possible this'll require a buildfarm cycle or two to get right.
Author: David Rowley
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/CAKJS1f-6f4c2Qhuipe-GY7BKmFd0FMBobRnLS7hVCoAmTszsBg@mail.gmail.com
Add a new module backend/partitioning/partprune.c, implementing a more
sophisticated algorithm for partition pruning. The new module uses each
partition's "boundinfo" for pruning instead of constraint exclusion,
based on an idea proposed by Robert Haas of a "pruning program": a list
of steps generated from the query quals which are run iteratively to
obtain a list of partitions that must be scanned in order to satisfy
those quals.
At present, this targets planner-time partition pruning, but there exist
further patches to apply partition pruning at execution time as well.
This commit also moves some definitions from include/catalog/partition.h
to a new file include/partitioning/partbounds.h, in an attempt to
rationalize partitioning related code.
Authors: Amit Langote, David Rowley, Dilip Kumar
Reviewers: Robert Haas, Kyotaro Horiguchi, Ashutosh Bapat, Jesper Pedersen.
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/098b9c71-1915-1a2a-8d52-1a7a50ce79e8@lab.ntt.co.jp
Commit b08df9cab left things rather poorly documented as far as the
exact semantics of "clause_is_check" mode went. Also, that mode did
not really work correctly for predicate_refuted_by; although given the
lack of specification as to what it should do, as well as the lack
of any actual use-case, that's perhaps not surprising.
Rename "clause_is_check" to "weak" proof mode, and provide specifications
for what it should do. I defined weak refutation as meaning "truth of A
implies non-truth of B", which makes it possible to use the mode in the
part of relation_excluded_by_constraints that checks for mutually
contradictory WHERE clauses. Fix up several places that did things wrong
for that definition. (As far as I can see, these errors would only lead
to failure-to-prove, not incorrect claims of proof, making them not
serious bugs even aside from the fact that v10 contains no use of this
mode. So there seems no need for back-patching.)
In addition, teach predicate_refuted_by_recurse that it can use
predicate_implied_by_recurse after all when processing a strong NOT-clause,
so long as it asks for the correct proof strength. This is an optimization
that could have been included in commit b08df9cab, but wasn't.
Also, simplify and generalize the logic that checks for whether nullness of
the argument of IS [NOT] NULL would force overall nullness of the predicate
or clause. (This results in a change in the partition_prune test's output,
as it is now able to prune an all-nulls partition that it did not recognize
before.)
In passing, in PartConstraintImpliedByRelConstraint, remove bogus
conversion of the constraint list to explicit-AND form and then right back
again; that accomplished nothing except forcing a useless extra level of
recursion inside predicate_implied_by.
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/5983.1520487191@sss.pgh.pa.us
The old code generated always generated a constraint of the form
col = ANY(ARRAY[val1, val2, ...]), but that's invalid when col is an
array type. Instead, generate col = val when there's only one value,
col = val1 OR col = val2 OR ... when there are multiple values and
col is of array type, and the old form when there are multiple values
and col is not of an array type.
As a side benefit, this makes constraint exclusion able to prune
a list partition declared to accept a single Boolean value, which
didn't work before.
Amit Langote, reviewed by Etsuro Fujita
Discussion: http://postgr.es/m/97267195-e235-89d1-a41a-c110198dfce9@lab.ntt.co.jp
Currently, partition pruning happens via constraint exclusion, but
there are pending places to replace that with a different and
hopefully faster mechanism. To be sure that we don't change behavior
without realizing it, add extensive test coverage.
Note that not all of these behaviors are optimal; in some cases,
partitions are not pruned even though it would be safe to do so.
These tests therefore serve to memorialize the current state rather
than the ideal state. Patches that improve things can update the test
results as appropriate.
Amit Langote, adjusted by me. Review and testing of the larger patch
set of which this is a part by Ashutosh Bapat, David Rowley, Dilip
Kumar, Jesper Pedersen, Rajkumar Raghuwanshi, Beena Emerson, Amul Sul,
and Kyotaro Horiguchi.
Discussion: http://postgr.es/m/098b9c71-1915-1a2a-8d52-1a7a50ce79e8@lab.ntt.co.jp
Alvaro Herrera
Michael Paquier
Tom Lane
Teodor Sigaev
Andrew Gierth
Andres Freund
Robert Haas