BumpContext relies on using the head block from its 'blocks' field to
use as the current block to allocate new chunks to. When we receive an
allocation request larger than allocChunkLimit, we place these chunks on
a new dedicated block and, until now, we pushed the block onto the
*head* of the 'blocks' list.
This behavior caused the previous bump block to no longer be available
for new normal-sized (non-large) allocations and would result in blocks
only being partially filled if a large allocation request arrived before
the block became full.
Here adjust the code to push these dedicated blocks onto the *tail* of
the blocks list so that the head block remains intact and available to
be used by normal allocation request sizes until it becomes full.
In passing, make the elog(ERROR) calls for the unsupported callbacks
consistent. Likewise for the header comments for those functions.
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/CAApHDvp9___r-ayJj0nZ6GD3MeCGwGZ0_6ZptWpwj+zqHtmwCw@mail.gmail.com
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/CAApHDvqerXpzUnuDQfUEi3DZA+9=Ud9WSt3ruxN5b6PcOosx2g@mail.gmail.com
There were no callers of BumpAllocLarge() in the regression tests, so
here we add a sort with a tuple large enough to use that path in bump.c.
Also, BumpStats() wasn't being called, so add a test to sysviews.sql to
call pg_backend_memory_contexts() while a bump context exists in the
backend.
Reported-by: Andres Freund
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/20240414223305.m3i5eju6zylabvln@awork3.anarazel.de
When evaluating a query with a multi-column GROUP BY clause, we can minimize
sort operations or avoid them if we synchronize the order of GROUP BY clauses
with the ORDER BY sort clause or sort order, which comes from the underlying
query tree. Grouping does not imply any ordering, so we can compare
the keys in arbitrary order, and a Hash Agg leverages this. But for Group Agg,
we simply compared keys in the order specified in the query. This commit
explores alternative ordering of the keys, trying to find a cheaper one.
The ordering of group keys may interact with other parts of the query, some of
which may not be known while planning the grouping. For example, 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 eliminating the sort entirely.
The patch always keeps the ordering specified in the query, assuming the user
might have additional insights.
This introduces a new GUC enable_group_by_reordering so that the optimization
may be disabled if needed.
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/7c79e6a5-8597-74e8-0671-1c39d124c9d6%40sigaev.ru
Author: Andrei Lepikhov, Teodor Sigaev
Reviewed-by: Tomas Vondra, Claudio Freire, Gavin Flower, Dmitry Dolgov
Reviewed-by: Robert Haas, Pavel Borisov, David Rowley, Zhihong Yu
Reviewed-by: Tom Lane, Alexander Korotkov, Richard Guo, Alena Rybakina
The Self Join Elimination (SJE) feature removes an inner join of a plain table
to itself in the query tree if is proved that the join can be replaced with
a scan without impacting the query result. Self join and inner relation are
replaced with the outer in query, equivalence classes, and planner info
structures. Also, inner restrictlist moves to the outer one with removing
duplicated clauses. Thus, this optimization reduces the length of the range
table list (this especially makes sense for partitioned relations), reduces
the number of restriction clauses === selectivity estimations, and potentially
can improve total planner prediction for the query.
The SJE proof is based on innerrel_is_unique machinery.
We can remove a self-join when for each outer row:
1. At most one inner row matches the join clause.
2. Each matched inner row must be (physically) the same row as the outer one.
In this patch we use the next approach to identify a self-join:
1. Collect all merge-joinable join quals which look like a.x = b.x
2. Add to the list above the baseretrictinfo of the inner table.
3. Check innerrel_is_unique() for the qual list. If it returns false, skip
this pair of joining tables.
4. Check uniqueness, proved by the baserestrictinfo clauses. To prove
the possibility of self-join elimination inner and outer clauses must have
an exact match.
The relation replacement procedure is not trivial and it is partly combined
with the one, used to remove useless left joins. Tests, covering this feature,
were added to join.sql. Some regression tests changed due to self-join removal
logic.
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/flat/64486b0b-0404-e39e-322d-0801154901f3%40postgrespro.ru
Author: Andrey Lepikhov, Alexander Kuzmenkov
Reviewed-by: Tom Lane, Robert Haas, Andres Freund, Simon Riggs, Jonathan S. Katz
Reviewed-by: David Rowley, Thomas Munro, Konstantin Knizhnik, Heikki Linnakangas
Reviewed-by: Hywel Carver, Laurenz Albe, Ronan Dunklau, vignesh C, Zhihong Yu
Reviewed-by: Greg Stark, Jaime Casanova, Michał Kłeczek, Alena Rybakina
Reviewed-by: Alexander Korotkov
This new view, wrapped around a SRF, shows some information known about
wait events, as of:
- Name.
- Type (Activity, I/O, Extension, etc.).
- Description.
All the information retrieved comes from wait_event_names.txt, and the
description is the same as the documentation with filters applied to
remove any XML markups. This view is useful when joined with
pg_stat_activity to get the description of a wait event reported.
Custom wait events for extensions are included in the view.
Original idea by Yves Colin.
Author: Bertrand Drouvot
Reviewed-by: Kyotaro Horiguchi, Masahiro Ikeda, Tom Lane, Michael
Paquier
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/0e2ae164-dc89-03c3-cf7f-de86378053ac@gmail.com
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
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
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 view is similar to pg_hba_file_rules view, except that it is
associated with the parsing of pg_ident.conf. Similarly to its cousin,
this view is useful to check via SQL if changes planned in pg_ident.conf
would work upon reload or restart, or to diagnose a previous failure.
Bumps catalog version.
Author: Julien Rouhaud
Reviewed-by: Aleksander Alekseev, Michael Paquier
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/20220223045959.35ipdsvbxcstrhya@jrouhaud
The regression tests include a query to check the execution path of
pg_hba_file_rules, but it has never checked that a given cluster has
correct contents in pg_hba.conf. This commit extends the query of
pg_hba_file_rules to report any errors if anything bad is found. For
EXEC_BACKEND builds, any connection attempt would fail when loading
pg_hba.conf if any incorrect content is found when parsed, so a failure
would be detected before even running this query. However, this can
become handy for clusters where pg_hba.conf can be reloaded, where new
connection attempts are not subject to a fresh loading of pg_hba.conf.
Author: Julien Rouhaud, based on an idea from me
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/YkFhpydhyeNNo3Xl@paquier.xyz
This fixes a set of issues that have accumulated over the past months
(or years) in various code areas. Most fixes are related to some recent
additions, as of the development of v15.
Author: Justin Pryzby
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/20220124030001.GQ23027@telsasoft.com
pg_stat_get_slru() in pgstatfuncs.c would point to one element after the
end of the array PgStat_SLRUStats when finishing to scan its entries.
This had no direct consequences as no data from the extra memory area
was read, but static analyzers would rightfully complain here. So let's
be clean.
While on it, this adds one regression test in the area reserved for
system views.
Reported-by: Alexander Kozhemyakin, via AddressSanitizer
Author: Kyotaro Horiguchi
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/17280-37da556e86032070@postgresql.org
Backpatch-through: 13
"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
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
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
Commit 2c8dd05d6c added the atomic variable writtenUpto into
walreceiver's shared memory information. It's initialized only
when walreceiver started up but could be read via pg_stat_wal_receiver
view anytime, i.e., even before it's initialized. In the server built
with --disable-atomics and --disable-spinlocks, this uninitialized
atomic variable read could cause "invalid spinlock number: 0" error.
This commit changed writtenUpto so that it's initialized at
the postmaster startup, to avoid the uninitialized variable read
via pg_stat_wal_receiver and fix the error.
Also this commit moved the read of writtenUpto after the release
of spinlock protecting walreceiver's shared variables. This is
necessary to prevent new spinlock from being taken by atomic
variable read while holding another spinlock, and to shorten
the spinlock duration. This change leads writtenUpto not to be
consistent with the other walreceiver's shared variables protected
by a spinlock. But this is OK because writtenUpto should not be
used for data integrity checks.
Back-patch to v13 where commit 2c8dd05d6c introduced the bug.
Author: Fujii Masao
Reviewed-by: Michael Paquier, Thomas Munro, Andres Freund
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/7ef8708c-5b6b-edd3-2cf2-7783f1c7c175@oss.nttdata.com
This view shows the statistics about WAL activity. Currently it has only
two columns: wal_buffers_full and stats_reset. wal_buffers_full column
indicates the number of times WAL data was written to the disk because
WAL buffers got full. This information is useful when tuning wal_buffers.
stats_reset column indicates the time at which these statistics were
last reset.
pg_stat_wal view is also the basic infrastructure to expose other
various statistics about WAL activity later.
Bump PGSTAT_FILE_FORMAT_ID due to the change in pgstat format.
Bump catalog version.
Author: Masahiro Ikeda
Reviewed-by: Takayuki Tsunakawa, Kyotaro Horiguchi, Amit Kapila, Fujii Masao
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/188bd3f2d2233cf97753b5ced02bb050@oss.nttdata.com
Eliminate enable_groupingsets_hash_disk, which was primarily useful
for testing grouping sets that use HashAgg and spill. Instead, hack
the table stats to convince the planner to choose hashed aggregation
for grouping sets that will spill to disk. Suggested by Melanie
Plageman.
Rename enable_hashagg_disk to hashagg_avoid_disk_plan, and invert the
meaning of on/off. The new name indicates more strongly that it only
affects the planner. Also, the word "avoid" is less definite, which
should avoid surprises when HashAgg still needs to use the
disk. Change suggested by Justin Pryzby, though I chose a different
GUC name.
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/CAAKRu_aisiENMsPM2gC4oUY1hHG3yrCwY-fXUg22C6_MJUwQdA%40mail.gmail.com
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/20200610021544.GA14879@telsasoft.com
Backpatch-through: 13
Incremental Sort is an optimized variant of multikey sort for cases when
the input is already sorted by a prefix of the requested sort keys. For
example when the relation is already sorted by (key1, key2) and we need
to sort it by (key1, key2, key3) we can simply split the input rows into
groups having equal values in (key1, key2), and only sort/compare the
remaining column key3.
This has a number of benefits:
- Reduced memory consumption, because only a single group (determined by
values in the sorted prefix) needs to be kept in memory. This may also
eliminate the need to spill to disk.
- Lower startup cost, because Incremental Sort produce results after each
prefix group, which is beneficial for plans where startup cost matters
(like for example queries with LIMIT clause).
We consider both Sort and Incremental Sort, and decide based on costing.
The implemented algorithm operates in two different modes:
- Fetching a minimum number of tuples without check of equality on the
prefix keys, and sorting on all columns when safe.
- Fetching all tuples for a single prefix group and then sorting by
comparing only the remaining (non-prefix) keys.
We always start in the first mode, and employ a heuristic to switch into
the second mode if we believe it's beneficial - the goal is to minimize
the number of unnecessary comparions while keeping memory consumption
below work_mem.
This is a very old patch series. The idea was originally proposed by
Alexander Korotkov back in 2013, and then revived in 2017. In 2018 the
patch was taken over by James Coleman, who wrote and rewrote most of the
current code.
There were many reviewers/contributors since 2013 - I've done my best to
pick the most active ones, and listed them in this commit message.
Author: James Coleman, Alexander Korotkov
Reviewed-by: Tomas Vondra, Andreas Karlsson, Marti Raudsepp, Peter Geoghegan, Robert Haas, Thomas Munro, Antonin Houska, Andres Freund, Alexander Kuzmenkov
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/CAPpHfdscOX5an71nHd8WSUH6GNOCf=V7wgDaTXdDd9=goN-gfA@mail.gmail.com
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/CAPpHfds1waRZ=NOmueYq0sx1ZSCnt+5QJvizT8ndT2=etZEeAQ@mail.gmail.com
While performing hash aggregation, track memory usage when adding new
groups to a hash table. If the memory usage exceeds work_mem, enter
"spill mode".
In spill mode, new groups are not created in the hash table(s), but
existing groups continue to be advanced if input tuples match. Tuples
that would cause a new group to be created are instead spilled to a
logical tape to be processed later.
The tuples are spilled in a partitioned fashion. When all tuples from
the outer plan are processed (either by advancing the group or
spilling the tuple), finalize and emit the groups from the hash
table. Then, create new batches of work from the spilled partitions,
and select one of the saved batches and process it (possibly spilling
recursively).
Author: Jeff Davis
Reviewed-by: Tomas Vondra, Adam Lee, Justin Pryzby, Taylor Vesely, Melanie Plageman
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/507ac540ec7c20136364b5272acbcd4574aa76ef.camel@j-davis.com
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
If the partition keys of input relation are part of the GROUP BY
clause, all the rows belonging to a given group come from a single
partition. This allows aggregation/grouping over a partitioned
relation to be broken down * into aggregation/grouping on each
partition. This should be no worse, and often better, than the normal
approach.
If the GROUP BY clause does not contain all the partition keys, we can
still perform partial aggregation for each partition and then finalize
aggregation after appending the partial results. This is less certain
to be a win, but it's still useful.
Jeevan Chalke, Ashutosh Bapat, Robert Haas. The larger patch series
of which this patch is a part was also reviewed and tested by Antonin
Houska, Rajkumar Raghuwanshi, David Rowley, Dilip Kumar, Konstantin
Knizhnik, Pascal Legrand, and Rafia Sabih.
Discussion: http://postgr.es/m/CAM2+6=V64_xhstVHie0Rz=KPEQnLJMZt_e314P0jaT_oJ9MR8A@mail.gmail.com
Introduce parallel-aware hash joins that appear in EXPLAIN plans as Parallel
Hash Join with Parallel Hash. While hash joins could already appear in
parallel queries, they were previously always parallel-oblivious and had a
partial subplan only on the outer side, meaning that the work of the inner
subplan was duplicated in every worker.
After this commit, the planner will consider using a partial subplan on the
inner side too, using the Parallel Hash node to divide the work over the
available CPU cores and combine its results in shared memory. If the join
needs to be split into multiple batches in order to respect work_mem, then
workers process different batches as much as possible and then work together
on the remaining batches.
The advantages of a parallel-aware hash join over a parallel-oblivious hash
join used in a parallel query are that it:
* avoids wasting memory on duplicated hash tables
* avoids wasting disk space on duplicated batch files
* divides the work of building the hash table over the CPUs
One disadvantage is that there is some communication between the participating
CPUs which might outweigh the benefits of parallelism in the case of small
hash tables. This is avoided by the planner's existing reluctance to supply
partial plans for small scans, but it may be necessary to estimate
synchronization costs in future if that situation changes. Another is that
outer batch 0 must be written to disk if multiple batches are required.
A potential future advantage of parallel-aware hash joins is that right and
full outer joins could be supported, since there is a single set of matched
bits for each hashtable, but that is not yet implemented.
A new GUC enable_parallel_hash is defined to control the feature, defaulting
to on.
Author: Thomas Munro
Reviewed-By: Andres Freund, Robert Haas
Tested-By: Rafia Sabih, Prabhat Sahu
Discussion:
https://postgr.es/m/CAEepm=2W=cOkiZxcg6qiFQP-dHUe09aqTrEMM7yJDrHMhDv_RA@mail.gmail.comhttps://postgr.es/m/CAEepm=37HKyJ4U6XOLi=JgfSHM3o6B-GaeO-6hkOmneTDkH+Uw@mail.gmail.com
When we create an Append node, we can spread out the workers over the
subplans instead of piling on to each subplan one at a time, which
should typically be a bit more efficient, both because the startup
cost of any plan executed entirely by one worker is paid only once and
also because of reduced contention. We can also construct Append
plans using a mix of partial and non-partial subplans, which may allow
for parallelism in places that otherwise couldn't support it.
Unfortunately, this patch doesn't handle the important case of
parallelizing UNION ALL by running each branch in a separate worker;
the executor infrastructure is added here, but more planner work is
needed.
Amit Khandekar, Robert Haas, Amul Sul, reviewed and tested by
Ashutosh Bapat, Amit Langote, Rafia Sabih, Amit Kapila, and
Rajkumar Raghuwanshi.
Discussion: http://postgr.es/m/CAJ3gD9dy0K_E8r727heqXoBmWZ83HwLFwdcaSSmBQ1+S+vRuUQ@mail.gmail.com
Instead of joining two partitioned tables in their entirety we can, if
it is an equi-join on the partition keys, join the matching partitions
individually. This involves teaching the planner about "other join"
rels, which are related to regular join rels in the same way that
other member rels are related to baserels. This can use significantly
more CPU time and memory than regular join planning, because there may
now be a set of "other" rels not only for every base relation but also
for every join relation. In most practical cases, this probably
shouldn't be a problem, because (1) it's probably unusual to join many
tables each with many partitions using the partition keys for all
joins and (2) if you do that scenario then you probably have a big
enough machine to handle the increased memory cost of planning and (3)
the resulting plan is highly likely to be better, so what you spend in
planning you'll make up on the execution side. All the same, for now,
turn this feature off by default.
Currently, we can only perform joins between two tables whose
partitioning schemes are absolutely identical. It would be nice to
cope with other scenarios, such as extra partitions on one side or the
other with no match on the other side, but that will have to wait for
a future patch.
Ashutosh Bapat, reviewed and tested by Rajkumar Raghuwanshi, Amit
Langote, Rafia Sabih, Thomas Munro, Dilip Kumar, Antonin Houska, Amit
Khandekar, and by me. A few final adjustments by me.
Discussion: http://postgr.es/m/CAFjFpRfQ8GrQvzp3jA2wnLqrHmaXna-urjm_UY9BqXj=EaDTSA@mail.gmail.com
Discussion: http://postgr.es/m/CAFjFpRcitjfrULr5jfuKWRPsGUX0LQ0k8-yG0Qw2+1LBGNpMdw@mail.gmail.com
Like Gather, we spawn multiple workers and run the same plan in each
one; however, Gather Merge is used when each worker produces the same
output ordering and we want to preserve that output ordering while
merging together the streams of tuples from various workers. (In a
way, Gather Merge is like a hybrid of Gather and MergeAppend.)
This works out to a win if it saves us from having to perform an
expensive Sort. In cases where only a small amount of data would need
to be sorted, it may actually be faster to use a regular Gather node
and then sort the results afterward, because Gather Merge sometimes
needs to wait synchronously for tuples whereas a pure Gather generally
doesn't. But if this avoids an expensive sort then it's a win.
Rushabh Lathia, reviewed and tested by Amit Kapila, Thomas Munro,
and Neha Sharma, and reviewed and revised by me.
Discussion: http://postgr.es/m/CAGPqQf09oPX-cQRpBKS0Gq49Z+m6KBxgxd_p9gX8CKk_d75HoQ@mail.gmail.com
This view is designed along the same lines as pg_file_settings, to wit
it shows what is currently in the file, not what the postmaster has
loaded as the active settings. That allows it to be used to pre-vet
edits before issuing SIGHUP. As with the earlier view, go out of our
way to allow errors in the file to be reflected in the view, to assist
that use-case.
(We might at some point invent a view to show the current active settings,
but this is not that patch; and it's not trivial to do.)
Haribabu Kommi, reviewed by Ashutosh Bapat, Michael Paquier, Simon Riggs,
and myself
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/CAJrrPGerH4jiwpcXT1-46QXUDmNp2QDrG9+-Tek_xC8APHShYw@mail.gmail.com
Quite a few of our built-in system views were not exercised anywhere
in the regression tests. This is perhaps not so exciting for the ones
that are simple projections/joins of system catalogs, but for the ones
that are wrappers for set-returning C functions, the omission translates
directly to lack of test coverage for those functions.
In many cases, the reason for the omission is that the view doesn't have
much to do with any specific SQL feature, so there's no natural place to
test it. To remedy that, invent a new script sysviews.sql that's dedicated
to testing SRF-based views. Move a couple of tests that did fit this
charter into the new script, and add simple "count(*)" based tests of
other views within the charter. That's enough to ensure we at least
exercise the main code path through the SRF, although it does little to
prove that the output is sane.
More could be done here, no doubt, and I hope someone will think about
how we can test these views more thoroughly. But this is a starting
point.
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/19359.1485723741@sss.pgh.pa.us
David Rowley
Alexander Korotkov
Michael Paquier
Tom Lane
Tomas Vondra
Etsuro Fujita
Amit Kapila
Fujii Masao
Peter Eisentraut
Jeff Davis
Alvaro Herrera
Robert Haas
Peter Eisentraut
Andres Freund