Since 15d8f8312 we assert that - and since 7ef04e4d2c, 4da597edf1
rely on - the slot type for an expression's
ecxt_{outer,inner,scan}tuple not changing, unless explicitly flagged
as such. That allows to either skip deforming (for a virtual tuple
slot) or optimize the code for JIT accelerated deforming
appropriately (for other known slot types).
This assumption was sometimes violated for grouping sets, when
nodeAgg.c internally uses tuplesorts, and the child node doesn't
return a TTSOpsMinimalTuple type slot. Detect that case, and flag that
the outer slot might not be "fixed".
It's probably worthwhile to optimize this further in the future, and
more granularly determine whether the slot is fixed. As we already
instantiate per-phase transition and equal expressions, we could
cheaply set the slot type appropriately for each phase. But that's a
separate change from this bugfix.
This commit does include a very minor optimization by avoiding to
create a slot for handling tuplesorts, if no such sorts are
performed. Previously we created that slot unnecessarily in the common
case of computing all grouping sets via hashing. The code looked too
confusing without that, as the conditions for needing a sort slot and
flagging that the slot type isn't fixed, are the same.
Reported-By: Ashutosh Sharma
Author: Andres Freund
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/CAE9k0PmNaMD2oHTEAhRyxnxpaDaYkuBYkLa1dpOpn=RS0iS2AQ@mail.gmail.com
Backpatch: 12-, where the bug was introduced in 15d8f8312
The logic in reorder_grouping_sets to order grouping set elements to
match a pre-specified sort ordering was defective, resulting in
unnecessary sort nodes (though the query output would still be
correct). Repair, simplifying the code a little, and add a test.
Per report from Richard Guo, though I didn't use their patch. Original
bug seems to have been my fault.
Backpatch back to 9.5 where grouping sets were introduced.
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/CAN_9JTzyjGcUjiBHxLsgqfk7PkdLGXiM=pwM+=ph2LsWw0WO1A@mail.gmail.com
Previously, parseCheckAggregates was run before
assign_query_collations, but this causes problems if any expression
has already had a collation assigned by some transform function (e.g.
transformCaseExpr) before parseCheckAggregates runs. The differing
collations would cause expressions not to be recognized as equal to
the ones in the GROUP BY clause, leading to spurious errors about
unaggregated column references.
The result was that CASE expr WHEN val ... would fail when "expr"
contained a GROUPING() expression or matched one of the group by
expressions, and where collatable types were involved; whereas the
supposedly identical CASE WHEN expr = val ... would succeed.
Backpatch all the way; this appears to have been wrong ever since
collations were introduced.
Per report from Guillaume Lelarge, analysis and patch by me.
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/CAECtzeVSO_US8C2Khgfv54ZMUOBR4sWq+6_bLrETnWExHT=rFg@mail.gmail.com
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/87muo0k0c7.fsf@news-spur.riddles.org.uk
If there were multiple grouping sets, none of them empty, all of which
were unsortable, then an oversight in consider_groupingsets_paths led
to a null pointer dereference. Fix, and add a regression test for this
case.
Per report from Dang Minh Huong, though I didn't use their patch.
Backpatch to 10.x where hashed grouping sets were added.
The changes in b81b5a96f4 did not fully
address the issue, because the bit-mixing of the IV into the final
hash-key didn't prevent clustering in the input-data survive in the
output data.
This didn't cause a lot of problems because of the additional growth
conditions added d4c62a6b62. But as we
want to rein those in due to explosive growth in some edges, this
needs to be fixed.
Author: Andres Freund
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/20171127185700.1470.20362@wrigleys.postgresql.org
Backpatch: 10, where simplehash was introduced
If we flatten a subquery whose target list contains constants or
expressions, when those output columns are used in GROUPING SET columns,
the planner was capable of doing the wrong thing by merging a pulled-up
expression into the surrounding expression during const-simplification.
Then the late processing that attempts to match subexpressions to grouping
sets would fail to match those subexpressions to grouping sets, with the
effect that they'd not go to null when expected.
To fix, wrap such subquery outputs in PlaceHolderVars, ensuring that
they preserve their separate identity throughout the planner's expression
processing. This is a bit of a band-aid, because the wrapper defeats
const-simplification even in places where it would be safe to allow.
But a nicer fix would likely be too invasive to back-patch, and the
consequences of the missed optimizations probably aren't large in most
cases.
Back-patch to 9.5 where grouping sets were introduced.
Heikki Linnakangas, with small mods and better test cases by me;
additional review by Andrew Gierth
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/7dbdcf5c-b5a6-ef89-4958-da212fe10176@iki.fi
Previously, we skipped using search_indexed_tlist_for_sortgroupref()
if the tlist expression being sought in the child plan node was merely
a Var. This is purely an optimization, based on the theory that
search_indexed_tlist_for_var() is faster, and one copy of a Var should
be as good as another. However, the GROUPING SETS patch broke the
latter assumption: grouping columns containing the "same" Var can
sometimes have different outputs, as shown in the test case added here.
So do it the hard way whenever a ressortgroupref marking exists.
(If this seems like a bottleneck, we could imagine building a tlist index
data structure for ressortgroupref values, as we do for Vars. But I'll
let that idea go until there's some evidence it's worthwhile.)
Back-patch to 9.6. The problem also exists in 9.5 where GROUPING SETS
came in, but this patch is insufficient to resolve the problem in 9.5:
there is some obscure dependency on the upper-planner-pathification
work that happened in 9.6. Given that this is such a weird corner case,
and no end users have complained about it, it doesn't seem worth the work
to develop a fix for 9.5.
Patch by me, per a report from Heikki Linnakangas. (This does not fix
Heikki's original complaint, just the follow-on one.)
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/aefc657e-edb2-64d5-6df1-a0828f6e9104@iki.fi
This extends the Aggregate node with two new features: HashAggregate
can now run multiple hashtables concurrently, and a new strategy
MixedAggregate populates hashtables while doing sorted grouping.
The planner will now attempt to save as many sorts as possible when
planning grouping sets queries, while not exceeding work_mem for the
estimated combined sizes of all hashtables used. No SQL-level changes
are required. There should be no user-visible impact other than the
new EXPLAIN output and possible changes to result ordering when ORDER
BY was not used (which affected a few regression tests). The
enable_hashagg option is respected.
Author: Andrew Gierth
Reviewers: Mark Dilger, Andres Freund
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/87vatszyhj.fsf@news-spur.riddles.org.uk
In 61444bfb we started to allow HAVING clauses to be fully pushed down
into WHERE, even when grouping sets are in use. That turns out not to
work correctly, because grouping sets can "produce" NULLs, meaning that
filtering in WHERE and HAVING can have different results, even when no
aggregates or volatile functions are involved.
Instead only allow pushdown of empty grouping sets.
It'd be nice to do better, but the exact mechanics of deciding which
cases are safe are still being debated. It's important to give correct
results till we find a good solution, and such a solution might not be
appropriate for backpatching anyway.
Bug: #13863
Reported-By: 'wrb'
Diagnosed-By: Dean Rasheed
Author: Andrew Gierth
Reviewed-By: Dean Rasheed and Andres Freund
Discussion: 20160113183558.12989.56904@wrigleys.postgresql.org
Backpatch: 9.5, where grouping sets were introduced
Previously nested grouping set specifications accidentally weren't
flattened, but instead contained the nested specification as a element
in the outer list.
Fix this by, as actually documented in comments, concatenating the
nested set specification into the outer one. Also add tests to prevent
this from breaking again.
Author: Andrew Gierth, with tests from Jeevan Chalke
Reported-By: Jeevan Chalke
Discussion: CAM2+6=V5YvuxB+EyN4iH=GbD-XTA435TCNvnDFSD--YvXs+pww@mail.gmail.com
Backpatch: 9.5, where grouping sets were introduced
Previously GROUPING() was not recognized as a aggregate expression,
erroneously allowing the planner to move it from HAVING to WHERE.
Author: Jeevan Chalke
Reviewed-By: Andrew Gierth
Discussion: CAM2+6=WG9omG5rFOMAYBweJxmpTaapvVp5pCeMrE6BfpCwr4Og@mail.gmail.com
Backpatch: 9.5, where grouping sets were introduced
The previous coding frequently failed to fail because for one it's
unusual to have rollup clauses with one column, and for another
sometimes the wrong mapping didn't cause obvious problems.
Author: Jeevan Chalke
Reviewed-By: Andrew Gierth
Discussion: CAM2+6=W=9=hQOipH0HAPbkun3Z3TFWij_EiHue0_6UX=oR=1kw@mail.gmail.com
Backpatch: 9.5, where grouping sets were introduced
This SQL standard functionality allows to aggregate data by different
GROUP BY clauses at once. Each grouping set returns rows with columns
grouped by in other sets set to NULL.
This could previously be achieved by doing each grouping as a separate
query, conjoined by UNION ALLs. Besides being considerably more concise,
grouping sets will in many cases be faster, requiring only one scan over
the underlying data.
The current implementation of grouping sets only supports using sorting
for input. Individual sets that share a sort order are computed in one
pass. If there are sets that don't share a sort order, additional sort &
aggregation steps are performed. These additional passes are sourced by
the previous sort step; thus avoiding repeated scans of the source data.
The code is structured in a way that adding support for purely using
hash aggregation or a mix of hashing and sorting is possible. Sorting
was chosen to be supported first, as it is the most generic method of
implementation.
Instead of, as in an earlier versions of the patch, representing the
chain of sort and aggregation steps as full blown planner and executor
nodes, all but the first sort are performed inside the aggregation node
itself. This avoids the need to do some unusual gymnastics to handle
having to return aggregated and non-aggregated tuples from underlying
nodes, as well as having to shut down underlying nodes early to limit
memory usage. The optimizer still builds Sort/Agg node to describe each
phase, but they're not part of the plan tree, but instead additional
data for the aggregation node. They're a convenient and preexisting way
to describe aggregation and sorting. The first (and possibly only) sort
step is still performed as a separate execution step. That retains
similarity with existing group by plans, makes rescans fairly simple,
avoids very deep plans (leading to slow explains) and easily allows to
avoid the sorting step if the underlying data is sorted by other means.
A somewhat ugly side of this patch is having to deal with a grammar
ambiguity between the new CUBE keyword and the cube extension/functions
named cube (and rollup). To avoid breaking existing deployments of the
cube extension it has not been renamed, neither has cube been made a
reserved keyword. Instead precedence hacking is used to make GROUP BY
cube(..) refer to the CUBE grouping sets feature, and not the function
cube(). To actually group by a function cube(), unlikely as that might
be, the function name has to be quoted.
Needs a catversion bump because stored rules may change.
Author: Andrew Gierth and Atri Sharma, with contributions from Andres Freund
Reviewed-By: Andres Freund, Noah Misch, Tom Lane, Svenne Krap, Tomas
Vondra, Erik Rijkers, Marti Raudsepp, Pavel Stehule
Discussion: CAOeZVidmVRe2jU6aMk_5qkxnB7dfmPROzM7Ur8JPW5j8Y5X-Lw@mail.gmail.com
Andres Freund
Andrew Gierth
Tom Lane
Peter Eisentraut