|
|
|
|
/*-------------------------------------------------------------------------
|
|
|
|
|
*
|
|
|
|
|
* joinpath.c
|
|
|
|
|
* Routines to find all possible paths for processing a set of joins
|
|
|
|
|
*
|
|
|
|
|
* Portions Copyright (c) 1996-2024, PostgreSQL Global Development Group
|
|
|
|
|
* Portions Copyright (c) 1994, Regents of the University of California
|
|
|
|
|
*
|
|
|
|
|
*
|
|
|
|
|
* IDENTIFICATION
|
|
|
|
|
* src/backend/optimizer/path/joinpath.c
|
|
|
|
|
*
|
|
|
|
|
*-------------------------------------------------------------------------
|
|
|
|
|
*/
|
|
|
|
|
#include "postgres.h"
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
#include <math.h>
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
#include "executor/executor.h"
|
|
|
|
|
#include "foreign/fdwapi.h"
|
Add Result Cache executor node (take 2)
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
5 years ago
|
|
|
#include "nodes/nodeFuncs.h"
|
|
|
|
|
#include "optimizer/cost.h"
|
Add Result Cache executor node (take 2)
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
5 years ago
|
|
|
#include "optimizer/optimizer.h"
|
|
|
|
|
#include "optimizer/pathnode.h"
|
|
|
|
|
#include "optimizer/paths.h"
|
|
|
|
|
#include "optimizer/planmain.h"
|
Add Result Cache executor node (take 2)
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
5 years ago
|
|
|
#include "utils/typcache.h"
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
/* Hook for plugins to get control in add_paths_to_joinrel() */
|
|
|
|
|
set_join_pathlist_hook_type set_join_pathlist_hook = NULL;
|
|
|
|
|
|
Basic partition-wise join functionality.
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
8 years ago
|
|
|
/*
|
|
|
|
|
* Paths parameterized by the parent can be considered to be parameterized by
|
|
|
|
|
* any of its child.
|
|
|
|
|
*/
|
|
|
|
|
#define PATH_PARAM_BY_PARENT(path, rel) \
|
|
|
|
|
((path)->param_info && bms_overlap(PATH_REQ_OUTER(path), \
|
|
|
|
|
(rel)->top_parent_relids))
|
|
|
|
|
#define PATH_PARAM_BY_REL_SELF(path, rel) \
|
Adjust definition of cheapest_total_path to work better with LATERAL.
In the initial cut at LATERAL, I kept the rule that cheapest_total_path
was always unparameterized, which meant it had to be NULL if the relation
has no unparameterized paths. It turns out to work much more nicely if
we always have *some* path nominated as cheapest-total for each relation.
In particular, let's still say it's the cheapest unparameterized path if
there is one; if not, take the cheapest-total-cost path among those of
the minimum available parameterization. (The first rule is actually
a special case of the second.)
This allows reversion of some temporary lobotomizations I'd put in place.
In particular, the planner can now consider hash and merge joins for
joins below a parameter-supplying nestloop, even if there aren't any
unparameterized paths available. This should bring planning of
LATERAL-containing queries to the same level as queries not using that
feature.
Along the way, simplify management of parameterized paths in add_path()
and friends. In the original coding for parameterized paths in 9.2,
I tried to minimize the logic changes in add_path(), so it just treated
parameterization as yet another dimension of comparison for paths.
We later made it ignore pathkeys (sort ordering) of parameterized paths,
on the grounds that ordering isn't a useful property for the path on the
inside of a nestloop, so we might as well get rid of useless parameterized
paths as quickly as possible. But we didn't take that reasoning as far as
we should have. Startup cost isn't a useful property inside a nestloop
either, so add_path() ought to discount startup cost of parameterized paths
as well. Having done that, the secondary sorting I'd implemented (in
add_parameterized_path) is no longer needed --- any parameterized path that
survives add_path() at all is worth considering at higher levels. So this
should be a bit faster as well as simpler.
14 years ago
|
|
|
((path)->param_info && bms_overlap(PATH_REQ_OUTER(path), (rel)->relids))
|
|
|
|
|
|
Basic partition-wise join functionality.
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
8 years ago
|
|
|
#define PATH_PARAM_BY_REL(path, rel) \
|
|
|
|
|
(PATH_PARAM_BY_REL_SELF(path, rel) || PATH_PARAM_BY_PARENT(path, rel))
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
static void try_partial_mergejoin_path(PlannerInfo *root,
|
|
|
|
|
RelOptInfo *joinrel,
|
|
|
|
|
Path *outer_path,
|
|
|
|
|
Path *inner_path,
|
|
|
|
|
List *pathkeys,
|
|
|
|
|
List *mergeclauses,
|
|
|
|
|
List *outersortkeys,
|
|
|
|
|
List *innersortkeys,
|
|
|
|
|
JoinType jointype,
|
|
|
|
|
JoinPathExtraData *extra);
|
|
|
|
|
static void sort_inner_and_outer(PlannerInfo *root, RelOptInfo *joinrel,
|
|
|
|
|
RelOptInfo *outerrel, RelOptInfo *innerrel,
|
|
|
|
|
JoinType jointype, JoinPathExtraData *extra);
|
Add Result Cache executor node (take 2)
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
5 years ago
|
|
|
static inline bool clause_sides_match_join(RestrictInfo *rinfo,
|
|
|
|
|
RelOptInfo *outerrel,
|
|
|
|
|
RelOptInfo *innerrel);
|
|
|
|
|
static void match_unsorted_outer(PlannerInfo *root, RelOptInfo *joinrel,
|
|
|
|
|
RelOptInfo *outerrel, RelOptInfo *innerrel,
|
|
|
|
|
JoinType jointype, JoinPathExtraData *extra);
|
|
|
|
|
static void consider_parallel_nestloop(PlannerInfo *root,
|
|
|
|
|
RelOptInfo *joinrel,
|
|
|
|
|
RelOptInfo *outerrel,
|
|
|
|
|
RelOptInfo *innerrel,
|
|
|
|
|
JoinType jointype,
|
|
|
|
|
JoinPathExtraData *extra);
|
|
|
|
|
static void consider_parallel_mergejoin(PlannerInfo *root,
|
|
|
|
|
RelOptInfo *joinrel,
|
|
|
|
|
RelOptInfo *outerrel,
|
|
|
|
|
RelOptInfo *innerrel,
|
|
|
|
|
JoinType jointype,
|
|
|
|
|
JoinPathExtraData *extra,
|
|
|
|
|
Path *inner_cheapest_total);
|
|
|
|
|
static void hash_inner_and_outer(PlannerInfo *root, RelOptInfo *joinrel,
|
|
|
|
|
RelOptInfo *outerrel, RelOptInfo *innerrel,
|
|
|
|
|
JoinType jointype, JoinPathExtraData *extra);
|
Fix some planner issues found while investigating Kevin Grittner's report
of poorer planning in 8.3 than 8.2:
1. After pushing a constant across an outer join --- ie, given
"a LEFT JOIN b ON (a.x = b.y) WHERE a.x = 42", we can deduce that b.y is
sort of equal to 42, in the sense that we needn't fetch any b rows where
it isn't 42 --- loop to see if any additional deductions can be made.
Previous releases did that by recursing, but I had mistakenly thought that
this was no longer necessary given the EquivalenceClass machinery.
2. Allow pushing constants across outer join conditions even if the
condition is outerjoin_delayed due to a lower outer join. This is safe
as long as the condition is strict and we re-test it at the upper join.
3. Keep the outer-join clause even if we successfully push a constant
across it. This is *necessary* in the outerjoin_delayed case, but
even in the simple case, it seems better to do this to ensure that the
join search order heuristics will consider the join as reasonable to
make. Mark such a clause as having selectivity 1.0, though, since it's
not going to eliminate very many rows after application of the constant
condition.
4. Tweak have_relevant_eclass_joinclause to report that two relations
are joinable when they have vars that are equated to the same constant.
We won't actually generate any joinclause from such an EquivalenceClass,
but again it seems that in such a case it's a good idea to consider
the join as worth costing out.
5. Fix a bug in select_mergejoin_clauses that was exposed by these
changes: we have to reject candidate mergejoin clauses if either side was
equated to a constant, because we can't construct a canonical pathkey list
for such a clause. This is an implementation restriction that might be
worth fixing someday, but it doesn't seem critical to get it done for 8.3.
18 years ago
|
|
|
static List *select_mergejoin_clauses(PlannerInfo *root,
|
|
|
|
|
RelOptInfo *joinrel,
|
|
|
|
|
RelOptInfo *outerrel,
|
|
|
|
|
RelOptInfo *innerrel,
|
|
|
|
|
List *restrictlist,
|
|
|
|
|
JoinType jointype,
|
|
|
|
|
bool *mergejoin_allowed);
|
|
|
|
|
static void generate_mergejoin_paths(PlannerInfo *root,
|
|
|
|
|
RelOptInfo *joinrel,
|
|
|
|
|
RelOptInfo *innerrel,
|
|
|
|
|
Path *outerpath,
|
|
|
|
|
JoinType jointype,
|
|
|
|
|
JoinPathExtraData *extra,
|
|
|
|
|
bool useallclauses,
|
|
|
|
|
Path *inner_cheapest_total,
|
|
|
|
|
List *merge_pathkeys,
|
|
|
|
|
bool is_partial);
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
/*
|
|
|
|
|
* add_paths_to_joinrel
|
|
|
|
|
* Given a join relation and two component rels from which it can be made,
|
|
|
|
|
* consider all possible paths that use the two component rels as outer
|
|
|
|
|
* and inner rel respectively. Add these paths to the join rel's pathlist
|
|
|
|
|
* if they survive comparison with other paths (and remove any existing
|
|
|
|
|
* paths that are dominated by these paths).
|
|
|
|
|
*
|
|
|
|
|
* Modifies the pathlist field of the joinrel node to contain the best
|
|
|
|
|
* paths found so far.
|
|
|
|
|
*
|
|
|
|
|
* jointype is not necessarily the same as sjinfo->jointype; it might be
|
|
|
|
|
* "flipped around" if we are considering joining the rels in the opposite
|
|
|
|
|
* direction from what's indicated in sjinfo.
|
|
|
|
|
*
|
|
|
|
|
* Also, this routine and others in this module accept the special JoinTypes
|
|
|
|
|
* JOIN_UNIQUE_OUTER and JOIN_UNIQUE_INNER to indicate that we should
|
|
|
|
|
* unique-ify the outer or inner relation and then apply a regular inner
|
|
|
|
|
* join. These values are not allowed to propagate outside this module,
|
|
|
|
|
* however. Path cost estimation code may need to recognize that it's
|
|
|
|
|
* dealing with such a case --- the combination of nominal jointype INNER
|
|
|
|
|
* with sjinfo->jointype == JOIN_SEMI indicates that.
|
|
|
|
|
*/
|
|
|
|
|
void
|
|
|
|
|
add_paths_to_joinrel(PlannerInfo *root,
|
|
|
|
|
RelOptInfo *joinrel,
|
|
|
|
|
RelOptInfo *outerrel,
|
|
|
|
|
RelOptInfo *innerrel,
|
|
|
|
|
JoinType jointype,
|
|
|
|
|
SpecialJoinInfo *sjinfo,
|
|
|
|
|
List *restrictlist)
|
|
|
|
|
{
|
Code review for foreign/custom join pushdown patch.
Commit e7cb7ee14555cc9c5773e2c102efd6371f6f2005 included some design
decisions that seem pretty questionable to me, and there was quite a lot
of stuff not to like about the documentation and comments. Clean up
as follows:
* Consider foreign joins only between foreign tables on the same server,
rather than between any two foreign tables with the same underlying FDW
handler function. In most if not all cases, the FDW would simply have had
to apply the same-server restriction itself (far more expensively, both for
lack of caching and because it would be repeated for each combination of
input sub-joins), or else risk nasty bugs. Anyone who's really intent on
doing something outside this restriction can always use the
set_join_pathlist_hook.
* Rename fdw_ps_tlist/custom_ps_tlist to fdw_scan_tlist/custom_scan_tlist
to better reflect what they're for, and allow these custom scan tlists
to be used even for base relations.
* Change make_foreignscan() API to include passing the fdw_scan_tlist
value, since the FDW is required to set that. Backwards compatibility
doesn't seem like an adequate reason to expect FDWs to set it in some
ad-hoc extra step, and anyway existing FDWs can just pass NIL.
* Change the API of path-generating subroutines of add_paths_to_joinrel,
and in particular that of GetForeignJoinPaths and set_join_pathlist_hook,
so that various less-used parameters are passed in a struct rather than
as separate parameter-list entries. The objective here is to reduce the
probability that future additions to those parameter lists will result in
source-level API breaks for users of these hooks. It's possible that this
is even a small win for the core code, since most CPU architectures can't
pass more than half a dozen parameters efficiently anyway. I kept root,
joinrel, outerrel, innerrel, and jointype as separate parameters to reduce
code churn in joinpath.c --- in particular, putting jointype into the
struct would have been problematic because of the subroutines' habit of
changing their local copies of that variable.
* Avoid ad-hocery in ExecAssignScanProjectionInfo. It was probably all
right for it to know about IndexOnlyScan, but if the list is to grow
we should refactor the knowledge out to the callers.
* Restore nodeForeignscan.c's previous use of the relcache to avoid
extra GetFdwRoutine lookups for base-relation scans.
* Lots of cleanup of documentation and missed comments. Re-order some
code additions into more logical places.
11 years ago
|
|
|
JoinPathExtraData extra;
|
|
|
|
|
bool mergejoin_allowed = true;
|
|
|
|
|
ListCell *lc;
|
Basic partition-wise join functionality.
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
8 years ago
|
|
|
Relids joinrelids;
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
/*
|
|
|
|
|
* PlannerInfo doesn't contain the SpecialJoinInfos created for joins
|
|
|
|
|
* between child relations, even if there is a SpecialJoinInfo node for
|
|
|
|
|
* the join between the topmost parents. So, while calculating Relids set
|
|
|
|
|
* representing the restriction, consider relids of topmost parent of
|
|
|
|
|
* partitions.
|
|
|
|
|
*/
|
|
|
|
|
if (joinrel->reloptkind == RELOPT_OTHER_JOINREL)
|
|
|
|
|
joinrelids = joinrel->top_parent_relids;
|
|
|
|
|
else
|
|
|
|
|
joinrelids = joinrel->relids;
|
|
|
|
|
|
Code review for foreign/custom join pushdown patch.
Commit e7cb7ee14555cc9c5773e2c102efd6371f6f2005 included some design
decisions that seem pretty questionable to me, and there was quite a lot
of stuff not to like about the documentation and comments. Clean up
as follows:
* Consider foreign joins only between foreign tables on the same server,
rather than between any two foreign tables with the same underlying FDW
handler function. In most if not all cases, the FDW would simply have had
to apply the same-server restriction itself (far more expensively, both for
lack of caching and because it would be repeated for each combination of
input sub-joins), or else risk nasty bugs. Anyone who's really intent on
doing something outside this restriction can always use the
set_join_pathlist_hook.
* Rename fdw_ps_tlist/custom_ps_tlist to fdw_scan_tlist/custom_scan_tlist
to better reflect what they're for, and allow these custom scan tlists
to be used even for base relations.
* Change make_foreignscan() API to include passing the fdw_scan_tlist
value, since the FDW is required to set that. Backwards compatibility
doesn't seem like an adequate reason to expect FDWs to set it in some
ad-hoc extra step, and anyway existing FDWs can just pass NIL.
* Change the API of path-generating subroutines of add_paths_to_joinrel,
and in particular that of GetForeignJoinPaths and set_join_pathlist_hook,
so that various less-used parameters are passed in a struct rather than
as separate parameter-list entries. The objective here is to reduce the
probability that future additions to those parameter lists will result in
source-level API breaks for users of these hooks. It's possible that this
is even a small win for the core code, since most CPU architectures can't
pass more than half a dozen parameters efficiently anyway. I kept root,
joinrel, outerrel, innerrel, and jointype as separate parameters to reduce
code churn in joinpath.c --- in particular, putting jointype into the
struct would have been problematic because of the subroutines' habit of
changing their local copies of that variable.
* Avoid ad-hocery in ExecAssignScanProjectionInfo. It was probably all
right for it to know about IndexOnlyScan, but if the list is to grow
we should refactor the knowledge out to the callers.
* Restore nodeForeignscan.c's previous use of the relcache to avoid
extra GetFdwRoutine lookups for base-relation scans.
* Lots of cleanup of documentation and missed comments. Re-order some
code additions into more logical places.
11 years ago
|
|
|
extra.restrictlist = restrictlist;
|
|
|
|
|
extra.mergeclause_list = NIL;
|
|
|
|
|
extra.sjinfo = sjinfo;
|
|
|
|
|
extra.param_source_rels = NULL;
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
/*
|
|
|
|
|
* See if the inner relation is provably unique for this outer rel.
|
|
|
|
|
*
|
|
|
|
|
* We have some special cases: for JOIN_SEMI and JOIN_ANTI, it doesn't
|
|
|
|
|
* matter since the executor can make the equivalent optimization anyway;
|
|
|
|
|
* we need not expend planner cycles on proofs. For JOIN_UNIQUE_INNER, we
|
|
|
|
|
* must be considering a semijoin whose inner side is not provably unique
|
|
|
|
|
* (else reduce_unique_semijoins would've simplified it), so there's no
|
|
|
|
|
* point in calling innerrel_is_unique. However, if the LHS covers all of
|
|
|
|
|
* the semijoin's min_lefthand, then it's appropriate to set inner_unique
|
|
|
|
|
* because the path produced by create_unique_path will be unique relative
|
|
|
|
|
* to the LHS. (If we have an LHS that's only part of the min_lefthand,
|
|
|
|
|
* that is *not* true.) For JOIN_UNIQUE_OUTER, pass JOIN_INNER to avoid
|
|
|
|
|
* letting that value escape this module.
|
|
|
|
|
*/
|
|
|
|
|
switch (jointype)
|
|
|
|
|
{
|
|
|
|
|
case JOIN_SEMI:
|
|
|
|
|
case JOIN_ANTI:
|
Add Result Cache executor node (take 2)
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
5 years ago
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
/*
|
|
|
|
|
* XXX it may be worth proving this to allow a Memoize to be
|
Add Result Cache executor node (take 2)
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
5 years ago
|
|
|
* considered for Nested Loop Semi/Anti Joins.
|
|
|
|
|
*/
|
|
|
|
|
extra.inner_unique = false; /* well, unproven */
|
|
|
|
|
break;
|
|
|
|
|
case JOIN_UNIQUE_INNER:
|
|
|
|
|
extra.inner_unique = bms_is_subset(sjinfo->min_lefthand,
|
|
|
|
|
outerrel->relids);
|
|
|
|
|
break;
|
|
|
|
|
case JOIN_UNIQUE_OUTER:
|
|
|
|
|
extra.inner_unique = innerrel_is_unique(root,
|
|
|
|
|
joinrel->relids,
|
|
|
|
|
outerrel->relids,
|
|
|
|
|
innerrel,
|
|
|
|
|
JOIN_INNER,
|
|
|
|
|
restrictlist,
|
|
|
|
|
false);
|
|
|
|
|
break;
|
|
|
|
|
default:
|
|
|
|
|
extra.inner_unique = innerrel_is_unique(root,
|
|
|
|
|
joinrel->relids,
|
|
|
|
|
outerrel->relids,
|
|
|
|
|
innerrel,
|
|
|
|
|
jointype,
|
|
|
|
|
restrictlist,
|
|
|
|
|
false);
|
|
|
|
|
break;
|
|
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
/*
|
|
|
|
|
* Find potential mergejoin clauses. We can skip this if we are not
|
|
|
|
|
* interested in doing a mergejoin. However, mergejoin may be our only
|
|
|
|
|
* way of implementing a full outer join, so override enable_mergejoin if
|
|
|
|
|
* it's a full join.
|
|
|
|
|
*/
|
|
|
|
|
if (enable_mergejoin || jointype == JOIN_FULL)
|
Code review for foreign/custom join pushdown patch.
Commit e7cb7ee14555cc9c5773e2c102efd6371f6f2005 included some design
decisions that seem pretty questionable to me, and there was quite a lot
of stuff not to like about the documentation and comments. Clean up
as follows:
* Consider foreign joins only between foreign tables on the same server,
rather than between any two foreign tables with the same underlying FDW
handler function. In most if not all cases, the FDW would simply have had
to apply the same-server restriction itself (far more expensively, both for
lack of caching and because it would be repeated for each combination of
input sub-joins), or else risk nasty bugs. Anyone who's really intent on
doing something outside this restriction can always use the
set_join_pathlist_hook.
* Rename fdw_ps_tlist/custom_ps_tlist to fdw_scan_tlist/custom_scan_tlist
to better reflect what they're for, and allow these custom scan tlists
to be used even for base relations.
* Change make_foreignscan() API to include passing the fdw_scan_tlist
value, since the FDW is required to set that. Backwards compatibility
doesn't seem like an adequate reason to expect FDWs to set it in some
ad-hoc extra step, and anyway existing FDWs can just pass NIL.
* Change the API of path-generating subroutines of add_paths_to_joinrel,
and in particular that of GetForeignJoinPaths and set_join_pathlist_hook,
so that various less-used parameters are passed in a struct rather than
as separate parameter-list entries. The objective here is to reduce the
probability that future additions to those parameter lists will result in
source-level API breaks for users of these hooks. It's possible that this
is even a small win for the core code, since most CPU architectures can't
pass more than half a dozen parameters efficiently anyway. I kept root,
joinrel, outerrel, innerrel, and jointype as separate parameters to reduce
code churn in joinpath.c --- in particular, putting jointype into the
struct would have been problematic because of the subroutines' habit of
changing their local copies of that variable.
* Avoid ad-hocery in ExecAssignScanProjectionInfo. It was probably all
right for it to know about IndexOnlyScan, but if the list is to grow
we should refactor the knowledge out to the callers.
* Restore nodeForeignscan.c's previous use of the relcache to avoid
extra GetFdwRoutine lookups for base-relation scans.
* Lots of cleanup of documentation and missed comments. Re-order some
code additions into more logical places.
11 years ago
|
|
|
extra.mergeclause_list = select_mergejoin_clauses(root,
|
|
|
|
|
joinrel,
|
|
|
|
|
outerrel,
|
|
|
|
|
innerrel,
|
|
|
|
|
restrictlist,
|
|
|
|
|
jointype,
|
|
|
|
|
&mergejoin_allowed);
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
/*
|
|
|
|
|
* If it's SEMI, ANTI, or inner_unique join, compute correction factors
|
|
|
|
|
* for cost estimation. These will be the same for all paths.
|
|
|
|
|
*/
|
|
|
|
|
if (jointype == JOIN_SEMI || jointype == JOIN_ANTI || extra.inner_unique)
|
|
|
|
|
compute_semi_anti_join_factors(root, joinrel, outerrel, innerrel,
|
|
|
|
|
jointype, sjinfo, restrictlist,
|
Code review for foreign/custom join pushdown patch.
Commit e7cb7ee14555cc9c5773e2c102efd6371f6f2005 included some design
decisions that seem pretty questionable to me, and there was quite a lot
of stuff not to like about the documentation and comments. Clean up
as follows:
* Consider foreign joins only between foreign tables on the same server,
rather than between any two foreign tables with the same underlying FDW
handler function. In most if not all cases, the FDW would simply have had
to apply the same-server restriction itself (far more expensively, both for
lack of caching and because it would be repeated for each combination of
input sub-joins), or else risk nasty bugs. Anyone who's really intent on
doing something outside this restriction can always use the
set_join_pathlist_hook.
* Rename fdw_ps_tlist/custom_ps_tlist to fdw_scan_tlist/custom_scan_tlist
to better reflect what they're for, and allow these custom scan tlists
to be used even for base relations.
* Change make_foreignscan() API to include passing the fdw_scan_tlist
value, since the FDW is required to set that. Backwards compatibility
doesn't seem like an adequate reason to expect FDWs to set it in some
ad-hoc extra step, and anyway existing FDWs can just pass NIL.
* Change the API of path-generating subroutines of add_paths_to_joinrel,
and in particular that of GetForeignJoinPaths and set_join_pathlist_hook,
so that various less-used parameters are passed in a struct rather than
as separate parameter-list entries. The objective here is to reduce the
probability that future additions to those parameter lists will result in
source-level API breaks for users of these hooks. It's possible that this
is even a small win for the core code, since most CPU architectures can't
pass more than half a dozen parameters efficiently anyway. I kept root,
joinrel, outerrel, innerrel, and jointype as separate parameters to reduce
code churn in joinpath.c --- in particular, putting jointype into the
struct would have been problematic because of the subroutines' habit of
changing their local copies of that variable.
* Avoid ad-hocery in ExecAssignScanProjectionInfo. It was probably all
right for it to know about IndexOnlyScan, but if the list is to grow
we should refactor the knowledge out to the callers.
* Restore nodeForeignscan.c's previous use of the relcache to avoid
extra GetFdwRoutine lookups for base-relation scans.
* Lots of cleanup of documentation and missed comments. Re-order some
code additions into more logical places.
11 years ago
|
|
|
&extra.semifactors);
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
/*
|
|
|
|
|
* Decide whether it's sensible to generate parameterized paths for this
|
|
|
|
|
* joinrel, and if so, which relations such paths should require. There
|
|
|
|
|
* is usually no need to create a parameterized result path unless there
|
|
|
|
|
* is a join order restriction that prevents joining one of our input rels
|
|
|
|
|
* directly to the parameter source rel instead of joining to the other
|
|
|
|
|
* input rel. (But see allow_star_schema_join().) This restriction
|
|
|
|
|
* reduces the number of parameterized paths we have to deal with at
|
|
|
|
|
* higher join levels, without compromising the quality of the resulting
|
|
|
|
|
* plan. We express the restriction as a Relids set that must overlap the
|
Make Vars be outer-join-aware.
Traditionally we used the same Var struct to represent the value
of a table column everywhere in parse and plan trees. This choice
predates our support for SQL outer joins, and it's really a pretty
bad idea with outer joins, because the Var's value can depend on
where it is in the tree: it might go to NULL above an outer join.
So expression nodes that are equal() per equalfuncs.c might not
represent the same value, which is a huge correctness hazard for
the planner.
To improve this, decorate Var nodes with a bitmapset showing
which outer joins (identified by RTE indexes) may have nulled
them at the point in the parse tree where the Var appears.
This allows us to trust that equal() Vars represent the same value.
A certain amount of klugery is still needed to cope with cases
where we re-order two outer joins, but it's possible to make it
work without sacrificing that core principle. PlaceHolderVars
receive similar decoration for the same reason.
In the planner, we include these outer join bitmapsets into the relids
that an expression is considered to depend on, and in consequence also
add outer-join relids to the relids of join RelOptInfos. This allows
us to correctly perceive whether an expression can be calculated above
or below a particular outer join.
This change affects FDWs that want to plan foreign joins. They *must*
follow suit when labeling foreign joins in order to match with the
core planner, but for many purposes (if postgres_fdw is any guide)
they'd prefer to consider only base relations within the join.
To support both requirements, redefine ForeignScan.fs_relids as
base+OJ relids, and add a new field fs_base_relids that's set up by
the core planner.
Large though it is, this commit just does the minimum necessary to
install the new mechanisms and get check-world passing again.
Follow-up patches will perform some cleanup. (The README additions
and comments mention some stuff that will appear in the follow-up.)
Patch by me; thanks to Richard Guo for review.
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/830269.1656693747@sss.pgh.pa.us
3 years ago
|
|
|
* parameterization of any proposed join path. Note: param_source_rels
|
|
|
|
|
* should contain only baserels, not OJ relids, so starting from
|
|
|
|
|
* all_baserels not all_query_rels is correct.
|
|
|
|
|
*/
|
|
|
|
|
foreach(lc, root->join_info_list)
|
|
|
|
|
{
|
|
|
|
|
SpecialJoinInfo *sjinfo2 = (SpecialJoinInfo *) lfirst(lc);
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
/*
|
|
|
|
|
* SJ is relevant to this join if we have some part of its RHS
|
|
|
|
|
* (possibly not all of it), and haven't yet joined to its LHS. (This
|
|
|
|
|
* test is pretty simplistic, but should be sufficient considering the
|
|
|
|
|
* join has already been proven legal.) If the SJ is relevant, it
|
|
|
|
|
* presents constraints for joining to anything not in its RHS.
|
|
|
|
|
*/
|
Basic partition-wise join functionality.
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
8 years ago
|
|
|
if (bms_overlap(joinrelids, sjinfo2->min_righthand) &&
|
|
|
|
|
!bms_overlap(joinrelids, sjinfo2->min_lefthand))
|
Code review for foreign/custom join pushdown patch.
Commit e7cb7ee14555cc9c5773e2c102efd6371f6f2005 included some design
decisions that seem pretty questionable to me, and there was quite a lot
of stuff not to like about the documentation and comments. Clean up
as follows:
* Consider foreign joins only between foreign tables on the same server,
rather than between any two foreign tables with the same underlying FDW
handler function. In most if not all cases, the FDW would simply have had
to apply the same-server restriction itself (far more expensively, both for
lack of caching and because it would be repeated for each combination of
input sub-joins), or else risk nasty bugs. Anyone who's really intent on
doing something outside this restriction can always use the
set_join_pathlist_hook.
* Rename fdw_ps_tlist/custom_ps_tlist to fdw_scan_tlist/custom_scan_tlist
to better reflect what they're for, and allow these custom scan tlists
to be used even for base relations.
* Change make_foreignscan() API to include passing the fdw_scan_tlist
value, since the FDW is required to set that. Backwards compatibility
doesn't seem like an adequate reason to expect FDWs to set it in some
ad-hoc extra step, and anyway existing FDWs can just pass NIL.
* Change the API of path-generating subroutines of add_paths_to_joinrel,
and in particular that of GetForeignJoinPaths and set_join_pathlist_hook,
so that various less-used parameters are passed in a struct rather than
as separate parameter-list entries. The objective here is to reduce the
probability that future additions to those parameter lists will result in
source-level API breaks for users of these hooks. It's possible that this
is even a small win for the core code, since most CPU architectures can't
pass more than half a dozen parameters efficiently anyway. I kept root,
joinrel, outerrel, innerrel, and jointype as separate parameters to reduce
code churn in joinpath.c --- in particular, putting jointype into the
struct would have been problematic because of the subroutines' habit of
changing their local copies of that variable.
* Avoid ad-hocery in ExecAssignScanProjectionInfo. It was probably all
right for it to know about IndexOnlyScan, but if the list is to grow
we should refactor the knowledge out to the callers.
* Restore nodeForeignscan.c's previous use of the relcache to avoid
extra GetFdwRoutine lookups for base-relation scans.
* Lots of cleanup of documentation and missed comments. Re-order some
code additions into more logical places.
11 years ago
|
|
|
extra.param_source_rels = bms_join(extra.param_source_rels,
|
Phase 3 of pgindent updates.
Don't move parenthesized lines to the left, even if that means they
flow past the right margin.
By default, BSD indent lines up statement continuation lines that are
within parentheses so that they start just to the right of the preceding
left parenthesis. However, traditionally, if that resulted in the
continuation line extending to the right of the desired right margin,
then indent would push it left just far enough to not overrun the margin,
if it could do so without making the continuation line start to the left of
the current statement indent. That makes for a weird mix of indentations
unless one has been completely rigid about never violating the 80-column
limit.
This behavior has been pretty universally panned by Postgres developers.
Hence, disable it with indent's new -lpl switch, so that parenthesized
lines are always lined up with the preceding left paren.
This patch is much less interesting than the first round of indent
changes, but also bulkier, so I thought it best to separate the effects.
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/E1dAmxK-0006EE-1r@gemulon.postgresql.org
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/30527.1495162840@sss.pgh.pa.us
9 years ago
|
|
|
bms_difference(root->all_baserels,
|
|
|
|
|
sjinfo2->min_righthand));
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
/* full joins constrain both sides symmetrically */
|
|
|
|
|
if (sjinfo2->jointype == JOIN_FULL &&
|
Basic partition-wise join functionality.
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
8 years ago
|
|
|
bms_overlap(joinrelids, sjinfo2->min_lefthand) &&
|
|
|
|
|
!bms_overlap(joinrelids, sjinfo2->min_righthand))
|
Code review for foreign/custom join pushdown patch.
Commit e7cb7ee14555cc9c5773e2c102efd6371f6f2005 included some design
decisions that seem pretty questionable to me, and there was quite a lot
of stuff not to like about the documentation and comments. Clean up
as follows:
* Consider foreign joins only between foreign tables on the same server,
rather than between any two foreign tables with the same underlying FDW
handler function. In most if not all cases, the FDW would simply have had
to apply the same-server restriction itself (far more expensively, both for
lack of caching and because it would be repeated for each combination of
input sub-joins), or else risk nasty bugs. Anyone who's really intent on
doing something outside this restriction can always use the
set_join_pathlist_hook.
* Rename fdw_ps_tlist/custom_ps_tlist to fdw_scan_tlist/custom_scan_tlist
to better reflect what they're for, and allow these custom scan tlists
to be used even for base relations.
* Change make_foreignscan() API to include passing the fdw_scan_tlist
value, since the FDW is required to set that. Backwards compatibility
doesn't seem like an adequate reason to expect FDWs to set it in some
ad-hoc extra step, and anyway existing FDWs can just pass NIL.
* Change the API of path-generating subroutines of add_paths_to_joinrel,
and in particular that of GetForeignJoinPaths and set_join_pathlist_hook,
so that various less-used parameters are passed in a struct rather than
as separate parameter-list entries. The objective here is to reduce the
probability that future additions to those parameter lists will result in
source-level API breaks for users of these hooks. It's possible that this
is even a small win for the core code, since most CPU architectures can't
pass more than half a dozen parameters efficiently anyway. I kept root,
joinrel, outerrel, innerrel, and jointype as separate parameters to reduce
code churn in joinpath.c --- in particular, putting jointype into the
struct would have been problematic because of the subroutines' habit of
changing their local copies of that variable.
* Avoid ad-hocery in ExecAssignScanProjectionInfo. It was probably all
right for it to know about IndexOnlyScan, but if the list is to grow
we should refactor the knowledge out to the callers.
* Restore nodeForeignscan.c's previous use of the relcache to avoid
extra GetFdwRoutine lookups for base-relation scans.
* Lots of cleanup of documentation and missed comments. Re-order some
code additions into more logical places.
11 years ago
|
|
|
extra.param_source_rels = bms_join(extra.param_source_rels,
|
Phase 3 of pgindent updates.
Don't move parenthesized lines to the left, even if that means they
flow past the right margin.
By default, BSD indent lines up statement continuation lines that are
within parentheses so that they start just to the right of the preceding
left parenthesis. However, traditionally, if that resulted in the
continuation line extending to the right of the desired right margin,
then indent would push it left just far enough to not overrun the margin,
if it could do so without making the continuation line start to the left of
the current statement indent. That makes for a weird mix of indentations
unless one has been completely rigid about never violating the 80-column
limit.
This behavior has been pretty universally panned by Postgres developers.
Hence, disable it with indent's new -lpl switch, so that parenthesized
lines are always lined up with the preceding left paren.
This patch is much less interesting than the first round of indent
changes, but also bulkier, so I thought it best to separate the effects.
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/E1dAmxK-0006EE-1r@gemulon.postgresql.org
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/30527.1495162840@sss.pgh.pa.us
9 years ago
|
|
|
bms_difference(root->all_baserels,
|
|
|
|
|
sjinfo2->min_lefthand));
|
|
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
/*
|
|
|
|
|
* However, when a LATERAL subquery is involved, there will simply not be
|
|
|
|
|
* any paths for the joinrel that aren't parameterized by whatever the
|
|
|
|
|
* subquery is parameterized by, unless its parameterization is resolved
|
|
|
|
|
* within the joinrel. So we might as well allow additional dependencies
|
|
|
|
|
* on whatever residual lateral dependencies the joinrel will have.
|
|
|
|
|
*/
|
|
|
|
|
extra.param_source_rels = bms_add_members(extra.param_source_rels,
|
|
|
|
|
joinrel->lateral_relids);
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
/*
|
|
|
|
|
* 1. Consider mergejoin paths where both relations must be explicitly
|
|
|
|
|
* sorted. Skip this if we can't mergejoin.
|
|
|
|
|
*/
|
|
|
|
|
if (mergejoin_allowed)
|
|
|
|
|
sort_inner_and_outer(root, joinrel, outerrel, innerrel,
|
Code review for foreign/custom join pushdown patch.
Commit e7cb7ee14555cc9c5773e2c102efd6371f6f2005 included some design
decisions that seem pretty questionable to me, and there was quite a lot
of stuff not to like about the documentation and comments. Clean up
as follows:
* Consider foreign joins only between foreign tables on the same server,
rather than between any two foreign tables with the same underlying FDW
handler function. In most if not all cases, the FDW would simply have had
to apply the same-server restriction itself (far more expensively, both for
lack of caching and because it would be repeated for each combination of
input sub-joins), or else risk nasty bugs. Anyone who's really intent on
doing something outside this restriction can always use the
set_join_pathlist_hook.
* Rename fdw_ps_tlist/custom_ps_tlist to fdw_scan_tlist/custom_scan_tlist
to better reflect what they're for, and allow these custom scan tlists
to be used even for base relations.
* Change make_foreignscan() API to include passing the fdw_scan_tlist
value, since the FDW is required to set that. Backwards compatibility
doesn't seem like an adequate reason to expect FDWs to set it in some
ad-hoc extra step, and anyway existing FDWs can just pass NIL.
* Change the API of path-generating subroutines of add_paths_to_joinrel,
and in particular that of GetForeignJoinPaths and set_join_pathlist_hook,
so that various less-used parameters are passed in a struct rather than
as separate parameter-list entries. The objective here is to reduce the
probability that future additions to those parameter lists will result in
source-level API breaks for users of these hooks. It's possible that this
is even a small win for the core code, since most CPU architectures can't
pass more than half a dozen parameters efficiently anyway. I kept root,
joinrel, outerrel, innerrel, and jointype as separate parameters to reduce
code churn in joinpath.c --- in particular, putting jointype into the
struct would have been problematic because of the subroutines' habit of
changing their local copies of that variable.
* Avoid ad-hocery in ExecAssignScanProjectionInfo. It was probably all
right for it to know about IndexOnlyScan, but if the list is to grow
we should refactor the knowledge out to the callers.
* Restore nodeForeignscan.c's previous use of the relcache to avoid
extra GetFdwRoutine lookups for base-relation scans.
* Lots of cleanup of documentation and missed comments. Re-order some
code additions into more logical places.
11 years ago
|
|
|
jointype, &extra);
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
/*
|
|
|
|
|
* 2. Consider paths where the outer relation need not be explicitly
|
|
|
|
|
* sorted. This includes both nestloops and mergejoins where the outer
|
|
|
|
|
* path is already ordered. Again, skip this if we can't mergejoin.
|
|
|
|
|
* (That's okay because we know that nestloop can't handle
|
|
|
|
|
* right/right-anti/full joins at all, so it wouldn't work in the
|
|
|
|
|
* prohibited cases either.)
|
|
|
|
|
*/
|
|
|
|
|
if (mergejoin_allowed)
|
|
|
|
|
match_unsorted_outer(root, joinrel, outerrel, innerrel,
|
Code review for foreign/custom join pushdown patch.
Commit e7cb7ee14555cc9c5773e2c102efd6371f6f2005 included some design
decisions that seem pretty questionable to me, and there was quite a lot
of stuff not to like about the documentation and comments. Clean up
as follows:
* Consider foreign joins only between foreign tables on the same server,
rather than between any two foreign tables with the same underlying FDW
handler function. In most if not all cases, the FDW would simply have had
to apply the same-server restriction itself (far more expensively, both for
lack of caching and because it would be repeated for each combination of
input sub-joins), or else risk nasty bugs. Anyone who's really intent on
doing something outside this restriction can always use the
set_join_pathlist_hook.
* Rename fdw_ps_tlist/custom_ps_tlist to fdw_scan_tlist/custom_scan_tlist
to better reflect what they're for, and allow these custom scan tlists
to be used even for base relations.
* Change make_foreignscan() API to include passing the fdw_scan_tlist
value, since the FDW is required to set that. Backwards compatibility
doesn't seem like an adequate reason to expect FDWs to set it in some
ad-hoc extra step, and anyway existing FDWs can just pass NIL.
* Change the API of path-generating subroutines of add_paths_to_joinrel,
and in particular that of GetForeignJoinPaths and set_join_pathlist_hook,
so that various less-used parameters are passed in a struct rather than
as separate parameter-list entries. The objective here is to reduce the
probability that future additions to those parameter lists will result in
source-level API breaks for users of these hooks. It's possible that this
is even a small win for the core code, since most CPU architectures can't
pass more than half a dozen parameters efficiently anyway. I kept root,
joinrel, outerrel, innerrel, and jointype as separate parameters to reduce
code churn in joinpath.c --- in particular, putting jointype into the
struct would have been problematic because of the subroutines' habit of
changing their local copies of that variable.
* Avoid ad-hocery in ExecAssignScanProjectionInfo. It was probably all
right for it to know about IndexOnlyScan, but if the list is to grow
we should refactor the knowledge out to the callers.
* Restore nodeForeignscan.c's previous use of the relcache to avoid
extra GetFdwRoutine lookups for base-relation scans.
* Lots of cleanup of documentation and missed comments. Re-order some
code additions into more logical places.
11 years ago
|
|
|
jointype, &extra);
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
#ifdef NOT_USED
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
/*
|
|
|
|
|
* 3. Consider paths where the inner relation need not be explicitly
|
|
|
|
|
* sorted. This includes mergejoins only (nestloops were already built in
|
|
|
|
|
* match_unsorted_outer).
|
|
|
|
|
*
|
|
|
|
|
* Diked out as redundant 2/13/2000 -- tgl. There isn't any really
|
|
|
|
|
* significant difference between the inner and outer side of a mergejoin,
|
|
|
|
|
* so match_unsorted_inner creates no paths that aren't equivalent to
|
|
|
|
|
* those made by match_unsorted_outer when add_paths_to_joinrel() is
|
|
|
|
|
* invoked with the two rels given in the other order.
|
|
|
|
|
*/
|
|
|
|
|
if (mergejoin_allowed)
|
|
|
|
|
match_unsorted_inner(root, joinrel, outerrel, innerrel,
|
Code review for foreign/custom join pushdown patch.
Commit e7cb7ee14555cc9c5773e2c102efd6371f6f2005 included some design
decisions that seem pretty questionable to me, and there was quite a lot
of stuff not to like about the documentation and comments. Clean up
as follows:
* Consider foreign joins only between foreign tables on the same server,
rather than between any two foreign tables with the same underlying FDW
handler function. In most if not all cases, the FDW would simply have had
to apply the same-server restriction itself (far more expensively, both for
lack of caching and because it would be repeated for each combination of
input sub-joins), or else risk nasty bugs. Anyone who's really intent on
doing something outside this restriction can always use the
set_join_pathlist_hook.
* Rename fdw_ps_tlist/custom_ps_tlist to fdw_scan_tlist/custom_scan_tlist
to better reflect what they're for, and allow these custom scan tlists
to be used even for base relations.
* Change make_foreignscan() API to include passing the fdw_scan_tlist
value, since the FDW is required to set that. Backwards compatibility
doesn't seem like an adequate reason to expect FDWs to set it in some
ad-hoc extra step, and anyway existing FDWs can just pass NIL.
* Change the API of path-generating subroutines of add_paths_to_joinrel,
and in particular that of GetForeignJoinPaths and set_join_pathlist_hook,
so that various less-used parameters are passed in a struct rather than
as separate parameter-list entries. The objective here is to reduce the
probability that future additions to those parameter lists will result in
source-level API breaks for users of these hooks. It's possible that this
is even a small win for the core code, since most CPU architectures can't
pass more than half a dozen parameters efficiently anyway. I kept root,
joinrel, outerrel, innerrel, and jointype as separate parameters to reduce
code churn in joinpath.c --- in particular, putting jointype into the
struct would have been problematic because of the subroutines' habit of
changing their local copies of that variable.
* Avoid ad-hocery in ExecAssignScanProjectionInfo. It was probably all
right for it to know about IndexOnlyScan, but if the list is to grow
we should refactor the knowledge out to the callers.
* Restore nodeForeignscan.c's previous use of the relcache to avoid
extra GetFdwRoutine lookups for base-relation scans.
* Lots of cleanup of documentation and missed comments. Re-order some
code additions into more logical places.
11 years ago
|
|
|
jointype, &extra);
|
|
|
|
|
#endif
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
/*
|
|
|
|
|
* 4. Consider paths where both outer and inner relations must be hashed
|
|
|
|
|
* before being joined. As above, disregard enable_hashjoin for full
|
|
|
|
|
* joins, because there may be no other alternative.
|
|
|
|
|
*/
|
|
|
|
|
if (enable_hashjoin || jointype == JOIN_FULL)
|
|
|
|
|
hash_inner_and_outer(root, joinrel, outerrel, innerrel,
|
Code review for foreign/custom join pushdown patch.
Commit e7cb7ee14555cc9c5773e2c102efd6371f6f2005 included some design
decisions that seem pretty questionable to me, and there was quite a lot
of stuff not to like about the documentation and comments. Clean up
as follows:
* Consider foreign joins only between foreign tables on the same server,
rather than between any two foreign tables with the same underlying FDW
handler function. In most if not all cases, the FDW would simply have had
to apply the same-server restriction itself (far more expensively, both for
lack of caching and because it would be repeated for each combination of
input sub-joins), or else risk nasty bugs. Anyone who's really intent on
doing something outside this restriction can always use the
set_join_pathlist_hook.
* Rename fdw_ps_tlist/custom_ps_tlist to fdw_scan_tlist/custom_scan_tlist
to better reflect what they're for, and allow these custom scan tlists
to be used even for base relations.
* Change make_foreignscan() API to include passing the fdw_scan_tlist
value, since the FDW is required to set that. Backwards compatibility
doesn't seem like an adequate reason to expect FDWs to set it in some
ad-hoc extra step, and anyway existing FDWs can just pass NIL.
* Change the API of path-generating subroutines of add_paths_to_joinrel,
and in particular that of GetForeignJoinPaths and set_join_pathlist_hook,
so that various less-used parameters are passed in a struct rather than
as separate parameter-list entries. The objective here is to reduce the
probability that future additions to those parameter lists will result in
source-level API breaks for users of these hooks. It's possible that this
is even a small win for the core code, since most CPU architectures can't
pass more than half a dozen parameters efficiently anyway. I kept root,
joinrel, outerrel, innerrel, and jointype as separate parameters to reduce
code churn in joinpath.c --- in particular, putting jointype into the
struct would have been problematic because of the subroutines' habit of
changing their local copies of that variable.
* Avoid ad-hocery in ExecAssignScanProjectionInfo. It was probably all
right for it to know about IndexOnlyScan, but if the list is to grow
we should refactor the knowledge out to the callers.
* Restore nodeForeignscan.c's previous use of the relcache to avoid
extra GetFdwRoutine lookups for base-relation scans.
* Lots of cleanup of documentation and missed comments. Re-order some
code additions into more logical places.
11 years ago
|
|
|
jointype, &extra);
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
/*
|
Code review for foreign/custom join pushdown patch.
Commit e7cb7ee14555cc9c5773e2c102efd6371f6f2005 included some design
decisions that seem pretty questionable to me, and there was quite a lot
of stuff not to like about the documentation and comments. Clean up
as follows:
* Consider foreign joins only between foreign tables on the same server,
rather than between any two foreign tables with the same underlying FDW
handler function. In most if not all cases, the FDW would simply have had
to apply the same-server restriction itself (far more expensively, both for
lack of caching and because it would be repeated for each combination of
input sub-joins), or else risk nasty bugs. Anyone who's really intent on
doing something outside this restriction can always use the
set_join_pathlist_hook.
* Rename fdw_ps_tlist/custom_ps_tlist to fdw_scan_tlist/custom_scan_tlist
to better reflect what they're for, and allow these custom scan tlists
to be used even for base relations.
* Change make_foreignscan() API to include passing the fdw_scan_tlist
value, since the FDW is required to set that. Backwards compatibility
doesn't seem like an adequate reason to expect FDWs to set it in some
ad-hoc extra step, and anyway existing FDWs can just pass NIL.
* Change the API of path-generating subroutines of add_paths_to_joinrel,
and in particular that of GetForeignJoinPaths and set_join_pathlist_hook,
so that various less-used parameters are passed in a struct rather than
as separate parameter-list entries. The objective here is to reduce the
probability that future additions to those parameter lists will result in
source-level API breaks for users of these hooks. It's possible that this
is even a small win for the core code, since most CPU architectures can't
pass more than half a dozen parameters efficiently anyway. I kept root,
joinrel, outerrel, innerrel, and jointype as separate parameters to reduce
code churn in joinpath.c --- in particular, putting jointype into the
struct would have been problematic because of the subroutines' habit of
changing their local copies of that variable.
* Avoid ad-hocery in ExecAssignScanProjectionInfo. It was probably all
right for it to know about IndexOnlyScan, but if the list is to grow
we should refactor the knowledge out to the callers.
* Restore nodeForeignscan.c's previous use of the relcache to avoid
extra GetFdwRoutine lookups for base-relation scans.
* Lots of cleanup of documentation and missed comments. Re-order some
code additions into more logical places.
11 years ago
|
|
|
* 5. If inner and outer relations are foreign tables (or joins) belonging
|
Avoid invalidating all foreign-join cached plans when user mappings change.
We must not push down a foreign join when the foreign tables involved
should be accessed under different user mappings. Previously we tried
to enforce that rule literally during planning, but that meant that the
resulting plans were dependent on the current contents of the
pg_user_mapping catalog, and we had to blow away all cached plans
containing any remote join when anything at all changed in pg_user_mapping.
This could have been improved somewhat, but the fact that a syscache inval
callback has very limited info about what changed made it hard to do better
within that design. Instead, let's change the planner to not consider user
mappings per se, but to allow a foreign join if both RTEs have the same
checkAsUser value. If they do, then they necessarily will use the same
user mapping at runtime, and we don't need to know specifically which one
that is. Post-plan-time changes in pg_user_mapping no longer require any
plan invalidation.
This rule does give up some optimization ability, to wit where two foreign
table references come from views with different owners or one's from a view
and one's directly in the query, but nonetheless the same user mapping
would have applied. We'll sacrifice the first case, but to not regress
more than we have to in the second case, allow a foreign join involving
both zero and nonzero checkAsUser values if the nonzero one is the same as
the prevailing effective userID. In that case, mark the plan as only
runnable by that userID.
The plancache code already had a notion of plans being userID-specific,
in order to support RLS. It was a little confused though, in particular
lacking clarity of thought as to whether it was the rewritten query or just
the finished plan that's dependent on the userID. Rearrange that code so
that it's clearer what depends on which, and so that the same logic applies
to both RLS-injected role dependency and foreign-join-injected role
dependency.
Note that this patch doesn't remove the other issue mentioned in the
original complaint, which is that while we'll reliably stop using a foreign
join if it's disallowed in a new context, we might fail to start using a
foreign join if it's now allowed, but we previously created a generic
cached plan that didn't use one. It was agreed that the chance of winning
that way was not high enough to justify the much larger number of plan
invalidations that would have to occur if we tried to cause it to happen.
In passing, clean up randomly-varying spelling of EXPLAIN commands in
postgres_fdw.sql, and fix a COSTS ON example that had been allowed to
leak into the committed tests.
This reverts most of commits fbe5a3fb7 and 5d4171d1c, which were the
previous attempt at ensuring we wouldn't push down foreign joins that
span permissions contexts.
Etsuro Fujita and Tom Lane
Discussion: <d49c1e5b-f059-20f4-c132-e9752ee0113e@lab.ntt.co.jp>
10 years ago
|
|
|
* to the same server and assigned to the same user to check access
|
|
|
|
|
* permissions as, give the FDW a chance to push down joins.
|
|
|
|
|
*/
|
|
|
|
|
if (joinrel->fdwroutine &&
|
Re-allow FDWs and custom scan providers to replace joins with pseudoconstant quals.
This was disabled in commit 6f80a8d9c due to the lack of support for
handling of pseudoconstant quals assigned to replaced joins in
createplan.c. To re-allow it, this patch adds the support by 1)
modifying the ForeignPath and CustomPath structs so that if they
represent foreign and custom scans replacing a join with a scan, they
store the list of RestrictInfo nodes to apply to the join, as in
JoinPaths, and by 2) modifying create_scan_plan() in createplan.c so
that it uses that list in that case, instead of the baserestrictinfo
list, to get pseudoconstant quals assigned to the join, as mentioned in
the commit message for that commit.
Important item for the release notes: this is non-backwards-compatible
since it modifies the ForeignPath and CustomPath structs, as mentioned
above, and changes the argument lists for FDW helper functions
create_foreignscan_path(), create_foreign_join_path(), and
create_foreign_upper_path().
Richard Guo, with some additional changes by me, reviewed by Nishant
Sharma, Suraj Kharage, and Richard Guo.
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/CADrsxdbcN1vejBaf8a%2BQhrZY5PXL-04mCd4GDu6qm6FigDZd6Q%40mail.gmail.com
2 years ago
|
|
|
joinrel->fdwroutine->GetForeignJoinPaths)
|
|
|
|
|
joinrel->fdwroutine->GetForeignJoinPaths(root, joinrel,
|
|
|
|
|
outerrel, innerrel,
|
Code review for foreign/custom join pushdown patch.
Commit e7cb7ee14555cc9c5773e2c102efd6371f6f2005 included some design
decisions that seem pretty questionable to me, and there was quite a lot
of stuff not to like about the documentation and comments. Clean up
as follows:
* Consider foreign joins only between foreign tables on the same server,
rather than between any two foreign tables with the same underlying FDW
handler function. In most if not all cases, the FDW would simply have had
to apply the same-server restriction itself (far more expensively, both for
lack of caching and because it would be repeated for each combination of
input sub-joins), or else risk nasty bugs. Anyone who's really intent on
doing something outside this restriction can always use the
set_join_pathlist_hook.
* Rename fdw_ps_tlist/custom_ps_tlist to fdw_scan_tlist/custom_scan_tlist
to better reflect what they're for, and allow these custom scan tlists
to be used even for base relations.
* Change make_foreignscan() API to include passing the fdw_scan_tlist
value, since the FDW is required to set that. Backwards compatibility
doesn't seem like an adequate reason to expect FDWs to set it in some
ad-hoc extra step, and anyway existing FDWs can just pass NIL.
* Change the API of path-generating subroutines of add_paths_to_joinrel,
and in particular that of GetForeignJoinPaths and set_join_pathlist_hook,
so that various less-used parameters are passed in a struct rather than
as separate parameter-list entries. The objective here is to reduce the
probability that future additions to those parameter lists will result in
source-level API breaks for users of these hooks. It's possible that this
is even a small win for the core code, since most CPU architectures can't
pass more than half a dozen parameters efficiently anyway. I kept root,
joinrel, outerrel, innerrel, and jointype as separate parameters to reduce
code churn in joinpath.c --- in particular, putting jointype into the
struct would have been problematic because of the subroutines' habit of
changing their local copies of that variable.
* Avoid ad-hocery in ExecAssignScanProjectionInfo. It was probably all
right for it to know about IndexOnlyScan, but if the list is to grow
we should refactor the knowledge out to the callers.
* Restore nodeForeignscan.c's previous use of the relcache to avoid
extra GetFdwRoutine lookups for base-relation scans.
* Lots of cleanup of documentation and missed comments. Re-order some
code additions into more logical places.
11 years ago
|
|
|
jointype, &extra);
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
/*
|
|
|
|
|
* 6. Finally, give extensions a chance to manipulate the path list. They
|
|
|
|
|
* could add new paths (such as CustomPaths) by calling add_path(), or
|
|
|
|
|
* add_partial_path() if parallel aware. They could also delete or modify
|
|
|
|
|
* paths added by the core code.
|
|
|
|
|
*/
|
Re-allow FDWs and custom scan providers to replace joins with pseudoconstant quals.
This was disabled in commit 6f80a8d9c due to the lack of support for
handling of pseudoconstant quals assigned to replaced joins in
createplan.c. To re-allow it, this patch adds the support by 1)
modifying the ForeignPath and CustomPath structs so that if they
represent foreign and custom scans replacing a join with a scan, they
store the list of RestrictInfo nodes to apply to the join, as in
JoinPaths, and by 2) modifying create_scan_plan() in createplan.c so
that it uses that list in that case, instead of the baserestrictinfo
list, to get pseudoconstant quals assigned to the join, as mentioned in
the commit message for that commit.
Important item for the release notes: this is non-backwards-compatible
since it modifies the ForeignPath and CustomPath structs, as mentioned
above, and changes the argument lists for FDW helper functions
create_foreignscan_path(), create_foreign_join_path(), and
create_foreign_upper_path().
Richard Guo, with some additional changes by me, reviewed by Nishant
Sharma, Suraj Kharage, and Richard Guo.
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/CADrsxdbcN1vejBaf8a%2BQhrZY5PXL-04mCd4GDu6qm6FigDZd6Q%40mail.gmail.com
2 years ago
|
|
|
if (set_join_pathlist_hook)
|
|
|
|
|
set_join_pathlist_hook(root, joinrel, outerrel, innerrel,
|
Code review for foreign/custom join pushdown patch.
Commit e7cb7ee14555cc9c5773e2c102efd6371f6f2005 included some design
decisions that seem pretty questionable to me, and there was quite a lot
of stuff not to like about the documentation and comments. Clean up
as follows:
* Consider foreign joins only between foreign tables on the same server,
rather than between any two foreign tables with the same underlying FDW
handler function. In most if not all cases, the FDW would simply have had
to apply the same-server restriction itself (far more expensively, both for
lack of caching and because it would be repeated for each combination of
input sub-joins), or else risk nasty bugs. Anyone who's really intent on
doing something outside this restriction can always use the
set_join_pathlist_hook.
* Rename fdw_ps_tlist/custom_ps_tlist to fdw_scan_tlist/custom_scan_tlist
to better reflect what they're for, and allow these custom scan tlists
to be used even for base relations.
* Change make_foreignscan() API to include passing the fdw_scan_tlist
value, since the FDW is required to set that. Backwards compatibility
doesn't seem like an adequate reason to expect FDWs to set it in some
ad-hoc extra step, and anyway existing FDWs can just pass NIL.
* Change the API of path-generating subroutines of add_paths_to_joinrel,
and in particular that of GetForeignJoinPaths and set_join_pathlist_hook,
so that various less-used parameters are passed in a struct rather than
as separate parameter-list entries. The objective here is to reduce the
probability that future additions to those parameter lists will result in
source-level API breaks for users of these hooks. It's possible that this
is even a small win for the core code, since most CPU architectures can't
pass more than half a dozen parameters efficiently anyway. I kept root,
joinrel, outerrel, innerrel, and jointype as separate parameters to reduce
code churn in joinpath.c --- in particular, putting jointype into the
struct would have been problematic because of the subroutines' habit of
changing their local copies of that variable.
* Avoid ad-hocery in ExecAssignScanProjectionInfo. It was probably all
right for it to know about IndexOnlyScan, but if the list is to grow
we should refactor the knowledge out to the callers.
* Restore nodeForeignscan.c's previous use of the relcache to avoid
extra GetFdwRoutine lookups for base-relation scans.
* Lots of cleanup of documentation and missed comments. Re-order some
code additions into more logical places.
11 years ago
|
|
|
jointype, &extra);
|
|
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
/*
|
|
|
|
|
* We override the param_source_rels heuristic to accept nestloop paths in
|
|
|
|
|
* which the outer rel satisfies some but not all of the inner path's
|
|
|
|
|
* parameterization. This is necessary to get good plans for star-schema
|
|
|
|
|
* scenarios, in which a parameterized path for a large table may require
|
|
|
|
|
* parameters from multiple small tables that will not get joined directly to
|
|
|
|
|
* each other. We can handle that by stacking nestloops that have the small
|
|
|
|
|
* tables on the outside; but this breaks the rule the param_source_rels
|
|
|
|
|
* heuristic is based on, namely that parameters should not be passed down
|
|
|
|
|
* across joins unless there's a join-order-constraint-based reason to do so.
|
|
|
|
|
* So we ignore the param_source_rels restriction when this case applies.
|
|
|
|
|
*
|
|
|
|
|
* allow_star_schema_join() returns true if the param_source_rels restriction
|
|
|
|
|
* should be overridden, ie, it's okay to perform this join.
|
|
|
|
|
*/
|
|
|
|
|
static inline bool
|
|
|
|
|
allow_star_schema_join(PlannerInfo *root,
|
|
|
|
|
Relids outerrelids,
|
|
|
|
|
Relids inner_paramrels)
|
|
|
|
|
{
|
|
|
|
|
/*
|
|
|
|
|
* It's a star-schema case if the outer rel provides some but not all of
|
|
|
|
|
* the inner rel's parameterization.
|
|
|
|
|
*/
|
|
|
|
|
return (bms_overlap(inner_paramrels, outerrelids) &&
|
|
|
|
|
bms_nonempty_difference(inner_paramrels, outerrelids));
|
|
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
|
|
Make Vars be outer-join-aware.
Traditionally we used the same Var struct to represent the value
of a table column everywhere in parse and plan trees. This choice
predates our support for SQL outer joins, and it's really a pretty
bad idea with outer joins, because the Var's value can depend on
where it is in the tree: it might go to NULL above an outer join.
So expression nodes that are equal() per equalfuncs.c might not
represent the same value, which is a huge correctness hazard for
the planner.
To improve this, decorate Var nodes with a bitmapset showing
which outer joins (identified by RTE indexes) may have nulled
them at the point in the parse tree where the Var appears.
This allows us to trust that equal() Vars represent the same value.
A certain amount of klugery is still needed to cope with cases
where we re-order two outer joins, but it's possible to make it
work without sacrificing that core principle. PlaceHolderVars
receive similar decoration for the same reason.
In the planner, we include these outer join bitmapsets into the relids
that an expression is considered to depend on, and in consequence also
add outer-join relids to the relids of join RelOptInfos. This allows
us to correctly perceive whether an expression can be calculated above
or below a particular outer join.
This change affects FDWs that want to plan foreign joins. They *must*
follow suit when labeling foreign joins in order to match with the
core planner, but for many purposes (if postgres_fdw is any guide)
they'd prefer to consider only base relations within the join.
To support both requirements, redefine ForeignScan.fs_relids as
base+OJ relids, and add a new field fs_base_relids that's set up by
the core planner.
Large though it is, this commit just does the minimum necessary to
install the new mechanisms and get check-world passing again.
Follow-up patches will perform some cleanup. (The README additions
and comments mention some stuff that will appear in the follow-up.)
Patch by me; thanks to Richard Guo for review.
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/830269.1656693747@sss.pgh.pa.us
3 years ago
|
|
|
/*
|
|
|
|
|
* If the parameterization is only partly satisfied by the outer rel,
|
|
|
|
|
* the unsatisfied part can't include any outer-join relids that could
|
|
|
|
|
* null rels of the satisfied part. That would imply that we're trying
|
|
|
|
|
* to use a clause involving a Var with nonempty varnullingrels at
|
|
|
|
|
* a join level where that value isn't yet computable.
|
|
|
|
|
*
|
|
|
|
|
* In practice, this test never finds a problem because earlier join order
|
|
|
|
|
* restrictions prevent us from attempting a join that would cause a problem.
|
|
|
|
|
* (That's unsurprising, because the code worked before we ever added
|
|
|
|
|
* outer-join relids to expression relids.) It still seems worth checking
|
|
|
|
|
* as a backstop, but we only do so in assert-enabled builds.
|
Make Vars be outer-join-aware.
Traditionally we used the same Var struct to represent the value
of a table column everywhere in parse and plan trees. This choice
predates our support for SQL outer joins, and it's really a pretty
bad idea with outer joins, because the Var's value can depend on
where it is in the tree: it might go to NULL above an outer join.
So expression nodes that are equal() per equalfuncs.c might not
represent the same value, which is a huge correctness hazard for
the planner.
To improve this, decorate Var nodes with a bitmapset showing
which outer joins (identified by RTE indexes) may have nulled
them at the point in the parse tree where the Var appears.
This allows us to trust that equal() Vars represent the same value.
A certain amount of klugery is still needed to cope with cases
where we re-order two outer joins, but it's possible to make it
work without sacrificing that core principle. PlaceHolderVars
receive similar decoration for the same reason.
In the planner, we include these outer join bitmapsets into the relids
that an expression is considered to depend on, and in consequence also
add outer-join relids to the relids of join RelOptInfos. This allows
us to correctly perceive whether an expression can be calculated above
or below a particular outer join.
This change affects FDWs that want to plan foreign joins. They *must*
follow suit when labeling foreign joins in order to match with the
core planner, but for many purposes (if postgres_fdw is any guide)
they'd prefer to consider only base relations within the join.
To support both requirements, redefine ForeignScan.fs_relids as
base+OJ relids, and add a new field fs_base_relids that's set up by
the core planner.
Large though it is, this commit just does the minimum necessary to
install the new mechanisms and get check-world passing again.
Follow-up patches will perform some cleanup. (The README additions
and comments mention some stuff that will appear in the follow-up.)
Patch by me; thanks to Richard Guo for review.
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/830269.1656693747@sss.pgh.pa.us
3 years ago
|
|
|
*/
|
|
|
|
|
#ifdef USE_ASSERT_CHECKING
|
Make Vars be outer-join-aware.
Traditionally we used the same Var struct to represent the value
of a table column everywhere in parse and plan trees. This choice
predates our support for SQL outer joins, and it's really a pretty
bad idea with outer joins, because the Var's value can depend on
where it is in the tree: it might go to NULL above an outer join.
So expression nodes that are equal() per equalfuncs.c might not
represent the same value, which is a huge correctness hazard for
the planner.
To improve this, decorate Var nodes with a bitmapset showing
which outer joins (identified by RTE indexes) may have nulled
them at the point in the parse tree where the Var appears.
This allows us to trust that equal() Vars represent the same value.
A certain amount of klugery is still needed to cope with cases
where we re-order two outer joins, but it's possible to make it
work without sacrificing that core principle. PlaceHolderVars
receive similar decoration for the same reason.
In the planner, we include these outer join bitmapsets into the relids
that an expression is considered to depend on, and in consequence also
add outer-join relids to the relids of join RelOptInfos. This allows
us to correctly perceive whether an expression can be calculated above
or below a particular outer join.
This change affects FDWs that want to plan foreign joins. They *must*
follow suit when labeling foreign joins in order to match with the
core planner, but for many purposes (if postgres_fdw is any guide)
they'd prefer to consider only base relations within the join.
To support both requirements, redefine ForeignScan.fs_relids as
base+OJ relids, and add a new field fs_base_relids that's set up by
the core planner.
Large though it is, this commit just does the minimum necessary to
install the new mechanisms and get check-world passing again.
Follow-up patches will perform some cleanup. (The README additions
and comments mention some stuff that will appear in the follow-up.)
Patch by me; thanks to Richard Guo for review.
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/830269.1656693747@sss.pgh.pa.us
3 years ago
|
|
|
static inline bool
|
|
|
|
|
have_unsafe_outer_join_ref(PlannerInfo *root,
|
|
|
|
|
Relids outerrelids,
|
|
|
|
|
Relids inner_paramrels)
|
|
|
|
|
{
|
|
|
|
|
bool result = false;
|
|
|
|
|
Relids unsatisfied = bms_difference(inner_paramrels, outerrelids);
|
|
|
|
|
Relids satisfied = bms_intersect(inner_paramrels, outerrelids);
|
Make Vars be outer-join-aware.
Traditionally we used the same Var struct to represent the value
of a table column everywhere in parse and plan trees. This choice
predates our support for SQL outer joins, and it's really a pretty
bad idea with outer joins, because the Var's value can depend on
where it is in the tree: it might go to NULL above an outer join.
So expression nodes that are equal() per equalfuncs.c might not
represent the same value, which is a huge correctness hazard for
the planner.
To improve this, decorate Var nodes with a bitmapset showing
which outer joins (identified by RTE indexes) may have nulled
them at the point in the parse tree where the Var appears.
This allows us to trust that equal() Vars represent the same value.
A certain amount of klugery is still needed to cope with cases
where we re-order two outer joins, but it's possible to make it
work without sacrificing that core principle. PlaceHolderVars
receive similar decoration for the same reason.
In the planner, we include these outer join bitmapsets into the relids
that an expression is considered to depend on, and in consequence also
add outer-join relids to the relids of join RelOptInfos. This allows
us to correctly perceive whether an expression can be calculated above
or below a particular outer join.
This change affects FDWs that want to plan foreign joins. They *must*
follow suit when labeling foreign joins in order to match with the
core planner, but for many purposes (if postgres_fdw is any guide)
they'd prefer to consider only base relations within the join.
To support both requirements, redefine ForeignScan.fs_relids as
base+OJ relids, and add a new field fs_base_relids that's set up by
the core planner.
Large though it is, this commit just does the minimum necessary to
install the new mechanisms and get check-world passing again.
Follow-up patches will perform some cleanup. (The README additions
and comments mention some stuff that will appear in the follow-up.)
Patch by me; thanks to Richard Guo for review.
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/830269.1656693747@sss.pgh.pa.us
3 years ago
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
if (bms_overlap(unsatisfied, root->outer_join_rels))
|
Make Vars be outer-join-aware.
Traditionally we used the same Var struct to represent the value
of a table column everywhere in parse and plan trees. This choice
predates our support for SQL outer joins, and it's really a pretty
bad idea with outer joins, because the Var's value can depend on
where it is in the tree: it might go to NULL above an outer join.
So expression nodes that are equal() per equalfuncs.c might not
represent the same value, which is a huge correctness hazard for
the planner.
To improve this, decorate Var nodes with a bitmapset showing
which outer joins (identified by RTE indexes) may have nulled
them at the point in the parse tree where the Var appears.
This allows us to trust that equal() Vars represent the same value.
A certain amount of klugery is still needed to cope with cases
where we re-order two outer joins, but it's possible to make it
work without sacrificing that core principle. PlaceHolderVars
receive similar decoration for the same reason.
In the planner, we include these outer join bitmapsets into the relids
that an expression is considered to depend on, and in consequence also
add outer-join relids to the relids of join RelOptInfos. This allows
us to correctly perceive whether an expression can be calculated above
or below a particular outer join.
This change affects FDWs that want to plan foreign joins. They *must*
follow suit when labeling foreign joins in order to match with the
core planner, but for many purposes (if postgres_fdw is any guide)
they'd prefer to consider only base relations within the join.
To support both requirements, redefine ForeignScan.fs_relids as
base+OJ relids, and add a new field fs_base_relids that's set up by
the core planner.
Large though it is, this commit just does the minimum necessary to
install the new mechanisms and get check-world passing again.
Follow-up patches will perform some cleanup. (The README additions
and comments mention some stuff that will appear in the follow-up.)
Patch by me; thanks to Richard Guo for review.
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/830269.1656693747@sss.pgh.pa.us
3 years ago
|
|
|
{
|
|
|
|
|
ListCell *lc;
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
foreach(lc, root->join_info_list)
|
|
|
|
|
{
|
|
|
|
|
SpecialJoinInfo *sjinfo = (SpecialJoinInfo *) lfirst(lc);
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
if (!bms_is_member(sjinfo->ojrelid, unsatisfied))
|
|
|
|
|
continue; /* not relevant */
|
|
|
|
|
if (bms_overlap(satisfied, sjinfo->min_righthand) ||
|
Make Vars be outer-join-aware.
Traditionally we used the same Var struct to represent the value
of a table column everywhere in parse and plan trees. This choice
predates our support for SQL outer joins, and it's really a pretty
bad idea with outer joins, because the Var's value can depend on
where it is in the tree: it might go to NULL above an outer join.
So expression nodes that are equal() per equalfuncs.c might not
represent the same value, which is a huge correctness hazard for
the planner.
To improve this, decorate Var nodes with a bitmapset showing
which outer joins (identified by RTE indexes) may have nulled
them at the point in the parse tree where the Var appears.
This allows us to trust that equal() Vars represent the same value.
A certain amount of klugery is still needed to cope with cases
where we re-order two outer joins, but it's possible to make it
work without sacrificing that core principle. PlaceHolderVars
receive similar decoration for the same reason.
In the planner, we include these outer join bitmapsets into the relids
that an expression is considered to depend on, and in consequence also
add outer-join relids to the relids of join RelOptInfos. This allows
us to correctly perceive whether an expression can be calculated above
or below a particular outer join.
This change affects FDWs that want to plan foreign joins. They *must*
follow suit when labeling foreign joins in order to match with the
core planner, but for many purposes (if postgres_fdw is any guide)
they'd prefer to consider only base relations within the join.
To support both requirements, redefine ForeignScan.fs_relids as
base+OJ relids, and add a new field fs_base_relids that's set up by
the core planner.
Large though it is, this commit just does the minimum necessary to
install the new mechanisms and get check-world passing again.
Follow-up patches will perform some cleanup. (The README additions
and comments mention some stuff that will appear in the follow-up.)
Patch by me; thanks to Richard Guo for review.
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/830269.1656693747@sss.pgh.pa.us
3 years ago
|
|
|
(sjinfo->jointype == JOIN_FULL &&
|
|
|
|
|
bms_overlap(satisfied, sjinfo->min_lefthand)))
|
Make Vars be outer-join-aware.
Traditionally we used the same Var struct to represent the value
of a table column everywhere in parse and plan trees. This choice
predates our support for SQL outer joins, and it's really a pretty
bad idea with outer joins, because the Var's value can depend on
where it is in the tree: it might go to NULL above an outer join.
So expression nodes that are equal() per equalfuncs.c might not
represent the same value, which is a huge correctness hazard for
the planner.
To improve this, decorate Var nodes with a bitmapset showing
which outer joins (identified by RTE indexes) may have nulled
them at the point in the parse tree where the Var appears.
This allows us to trust that equal() Vars represent the same value.
A certain amount of klugery is still needed to cope with cases
where we re-order two outer joins, but it's possible to make it
work without sacrificing that core principle. PlaceHolderVars
receive similar decoration for the same reason.
In the planner, we include these outer join bitmapsets into the relids
that an expression is considered to depend on, and in consequence also
add outer-join relids to the relids of join RelOptInfos. This allows
us to correctly perceive whether an expression can be calculated above
or below a particular outer join.
This change affects FDWs that want to plan foreign joins. They *must*
follow suit when labeling foreign joins in order to match with the
core planner, but for many purposes (if postgres_fdw is any guide)
they'd prefer to consider only base relations within the join.
To support both requirements, redefine ForeignScan.fs_relids as
base+OJ relids, and add a new field fs_base_relids that's set up by
the core planner.
Large though it is, this commit just does the minimum necessary to
install the new mechanisms and get check-world passing again.
Follow-up patches will perform some cleanup. (The README additions
and comments mention some stuff that will appear in the follow-up.)
Patch by me; thanks to Richard Guo for review.
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/830269.1656693747@sss.pgh.pa.us
3 years ago
|
|
|
{
|
|
|
|
|
result = true; /* doesn't work */
|
|
|
|
|
break;
|
|
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
/* Waste no memory when we reject a path here */
|
|
|
|
|
bms_free(unsatisfied);
|
|
|
|
|
bms_free(satisfied);
|
Make Vars be outer-join-aware.
Traditionally we used the same Var struct to represent the value
of a table column everywhere in parse and plan trees. This choice
predates our support for SQL outer joins, and it's really a pretty
bad idea with outer joins, because the Var's value can depend on
where it is in the tree: it might go to NULL above an outer join.
So expression nodes that are equal() per equalfuncs.c might not
represent the same value, which is a huge correctness hazard for
the planner.
To improve this, decorate Var nodes with a bitmapset showing
which outer joins (identified by RTE indexes) may have nulled
them at the point in the parse tree where the Var appears.
This allows us to trust that equal() Vars represent the same value.
A certain amount of klugery is still needed to cope with cases
where we re-order two outer joins, but it's possible to make it
work without sacrificing that core principle. PlaceHolderVars
receive similar decoration for the same reason.
In the planner, we include these outer join bitmapsets into the relids
that an expression is considered to depend on, and in consequence also
add outer-join relids to the relids of join RelOptInfos. This allows
us to correctly perceive whether an expression can be calculated above
or below a particular outer join.
This change affects FDWs that want to plan foreign joins. They *must*
follow suit when labeling foreign joins in order to match with the
core planner, but for many purposes (if postgres_fdw is any guide)
they'd prefer to consider only base relations within the join.
To support both requirements, redefine ForeignScan.fs_relids as
base+OJ relids, and add a new field fs_base_relids that's set up by
the core planner.
Large though it is, this commit just does the minimum necessary to
install the new mechanisms and get check-world passing again.
Follow-up patches will perform some cleanup. (The README additions
and comments mention some stuff that will appear in the follow-up.)
Patch by me; thanks to Richard Guo for review.
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/830269.1656693747@sss.pgh.pa.us
3 years ago
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
return result;
|
|
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
|
#endif /* USE_ASSERT_CHECKING */
|
Make Vars be outer-join-aware.
Traditionally we used the same Var struct to represent the value
of a table column everywhere in parse and plan trees. This choice
predates our support for SQL outer joins, and it's really a pretty
bad idea with outer joins, because the Var's value can depend on
where it is in the tree: it might go to NULL above an outer join.
So expression nodes that are equal() per equalfuncs.c might not
represent the same value, which is a huge correctness hazard for
the planner.
To improve this, decorate Var nodes with a bitmapset showing
which outer joins (identified by RTE indexes) may have nulled
them at the point in the parse tree where the Var appears.
This allows us to trust that equal() Vars represent the same value.
A certain amount of klugery is still needed to cope with cases
where we re-order two outer joins, but it's possible to make it
work without sacrificing that core principle. PlaceHolderVars
receive similar decoration for the same reason.
In the planner, we include these outer join bitmapsets into the relids
that an expression is considered to depend on, and in consequence also
add outer-join relids to the relids of join RelOptInfos. This allows
us to correctly perceive whether an expression can be calculated above
or below a particular outer join.
This change affects FDWs that want to plan foreign joins. They *must*
follow suit when labeling foreign joins in order to match with the
core planner, but for many purposes (if postgres_fdw is any guide)
they'd prefer to consider only base relations within the join.
To support both requirements, redefine ForeignScan.fs_relids as
base+OJ relids, and add a new field fs_base_relids that's set up by
the core planner.
Large though it is, this commit just does the minimum necessary to
install the new mechanisms and get check-world passing again.
Follow-up patches will perform some cleanup. (The README additions
and comments mention some stuff that will appear in the follow-up.)
Patch by me; thanks to Richard Guo for review.
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/830269.1656693747@sss.pgh.pa.us
3 years ago
|
|
|
|
Add Result Cache executor node (take 2)
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
5 years ago
|
|
|
/*
|
|
|
|
|
* paraminfo_get_equal_hashops
|
|
|
|
|
* Determine if the clauses in param_info and innerrel's lateral_vars
|
|
|
|
|
* can be hashed.
|
|
|
|
|
* Returns true if hashing is possible, otherwise false.
|
Add Result Cache executor node (take 2)
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
5 years ago
|
|
|
*
|
|
|
|
|
* Additionally, on success we collect the outer expressions and the
|
|
|
|
|
* appropriate equality operators for each hashable parameter to innerrel.
|
|
|
|
|
* These are returned in parallel lists in *param_exprs and *operators.
|
|
|
|
|
* We also set *binary_mode to indicate whether strict binary matching is
|
|
|
|
|
* required.
|
Add Result Cache executor node (take 2)
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
5 years ago
|
|
|
*/
|
|
|
|
|
static bool
|
|
|
|
|
paraminfo_get_equal_hashops(PlannerInfo *root, ParamPathInfo *param_info,
|
|
|
|
|
RelOptInfo *outerrel, RelOptInfo *innerrel,
|
|
|
|
|
List **param_exprs, List **operators,
|
|
|
|
|
bool *binary_mode)
|
Add Result Cache executor node (take 2)
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
5 years ago
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
{
|
|
|
|
|
ListCell *lc;
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
*param_exprs = NIL;
|
|
|
|
|
*operators = NIL;
|
|
|
|
|
*binary_mode = false;
|
Add Result Cache executor node (take 2)
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
5 years ago
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
/* Add join clauses from param_info to the hash key */
|
Add Result Cache executor node (take 2)
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
5 years ago
|
|
|
if (param_info != NULL)
|
|
|
|
|
{
|
|
|
|
|
List *clauses = param_info->ppi_clauses;
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
foreach(lc, clauses)
|
|
|
|
|
{
|
|
|
|
|
RestrictInfo *rinfo = (RestrictInfo *) lfirst(lc);
|
|
|
|
|
OpExpr *opexpr;
|
|
|
|
|
Node *expr;
|
|
|
|
|
Oid hasheqoperator;
|
Add Result Cache executor node (take 2)
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
5 years ago
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
opexpr = (OpExpr *) rinfo->clause;
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
/*
|
|
|
|
|
* Bail if the rinfo is not compatible. We need a join OpExpr
|
|
|
|
|
* with 2 args.
|
|
|
|
|
*/
|
|
|
|
|
if (!IsA(opexpr, OpExpr) || list_length(opexpr->args) != 2 ||
|
Add Result Cache executor node (take 2)
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
5 years ago
|
|
|
!clause_sides_match_join(rinfo, outerrel, innerrel))
|
|
|
|
|
{
|
|
|
|
|
list_free(*operators);
|
|
|
|
|
list_free(*param_exprs);
|
|
|
|
|
return false;
|
|
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
if (rinfo->outer_is_left)
|
|
|
|
|
{
|
Add Result Cache executor node (take 2)
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
5 years ago
|
|
|
expr = (Node *) linitial(opexpr->args);
|
|
|
|
|
hasheqoperator = rinfo->left_hasheqoperator;
|
|
|
|
|
}
|
Add Result Cache executor node (take 2)
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
5 years ago
|
|
|
else
|
|
|
|
|
{
|
Add Result Cache executor node (take 2)
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
5 years ago
|
|
|
expr = (Node *) lsecond(opexpr->args);
|
|
|
|
|
hasheqoperator = rinfo->right_hasheqoperator;
|
|
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
/* can't do memoize if we can't hash the outer type */
|
|
|
|
|
if (!OidIsValid(hasheqoperator))
|
|
|
|
|
{
|
|
|
|
|
list_free(*operators);
|
|
|
|
|
list_free(*param_exprs);
|
|
|
|
|
return false;
|
|
|
|
|
}
|
Add Result Cache executor node (take 2)
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
5 years ago
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
*operators = lappend_oid(*operators, hasheqoperator);
|
Add Result Cache executor node (take 2)
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
5 years ago
|
|
|
*param_exprs = lappend(*param_exprs, expr);
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
/*
|
|
|
|
|
* When the join operator is not hashable then it's possible that
|
|
|
|
|
* the operator will be able to distinguish something that the
|
|
|
|
|
* hash equality operator could not. For example with floating
|
|
|
|
|
* point types -0.0 and +0.0 are classed as equal by the hash
|
|
|
|
|
* function and equality function, but some other operator may be
|
|
|
|
|
* able to tell those values apart. This means that we must put
|
|
|
|
|
* memoize into binary comparison mode so that it does bit-by-bit
|
|
|
|
|
* comparisons rather than a "logical" comparison as it would
|
|
|
|
|
* using the hash equality operator.
|
|
|
|
|
*/
|
|
|
|
|
if (!OidIsValid(rinfo->hashjoinoperator))
|
|
|
|
|
*binary_mode = true;
|
Add Result Cache executor node (take 2)
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
5 years ago
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
/* Now add any lateral vars to the cache key too */
|
|
|
|
|
foreach(lc, innerrel->lateral_vars)
|
|
|
|
|
{
|
|
|
|
|
Node *expr = (Node *) lfirst(lc);
|
|
|
|
|
TypeCacheEntry *typentry;
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
/* Reject if there are any volatile functions in lateral vars */
|
Add Result Cache executor node (take 2)
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
5 years ago
|
|
|
if (contain_volatile_functions(expr))
|
|
|
|
|
{
|
|
|
|
|
list_free(*operators);
|
|
|
|
|
list_free(*param_exprs);
|
|
|
|
|
return false;
|
|
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
typentry = lookup_type_cache(exprType(expr),
|
|
|
|
|
TYPECACHE_HASH_PROC | TYPECACHE_EQ_OPR);
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
/* can't use memoize without a valid hash proc and equals operator */
|
Add Result Cache executor node (take 2)
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
5 years ago
|
|
|
if (!OidIsValid(typentry->hash_proc) || !OidIsValid(typentry->eq_opr))
|
|
|
|
|
{
|
|
|
|
|
list_free(*operators);
|
|
|
|
|
list_free(*param_exprs);
|
|
|
|
|
return false;
|
|
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
*operators = lappend_oid(*operators, typentry->eq_opr);
|
|
|
|
|
*param_exprs = lappend(*param_exprs, expr);
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
/*
|
|
|
|
|
* We must go into binary mode as we don't have too much of an idea of
|
|
|
|
|
* how these lateral Vars are being used. See comment above when we
|
|
|
|
|
* set *binary_mode for the non-lateral Var case. This could be
|
|
|
|
|
* relaxed a bit if we had the RestrictInfos and knew the operators
|
|
|
|
|
* being used, however for cases like Vars that are arguments to
|
|
|
|
|
* functions we must operate in binary mode as we don't have
|
|
|
|
|
* visibility into what the function is doing with the Vars.
|
|
|
|
|
*/
|
|
|
|
|
*binary_mode = true;
|
Add Result Cache executor node (take 2)
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
5 years ago
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
/* We're okay to use memoize */
|
Add Result Cache executor node (take 2)
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
5 years ago
|
|
|
return true;
|
|
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
/*
|
|
|
|
|
* get_memoize_path
|
|
|
|
|
* If possible, make and return a Memoize path atop of 'inner_path'.
|
Add Result Cache executor node (take 2)
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
5 years ago
|
|
|
* Otherwise return NULL.
|
|
|
|
|
*/
|
|
|
|
|
static Path *
|
|
|
|
|
get_memoize_path(PlannerInfo *root, RelOptInfo *innerrel,
|
|
|
|
|
RelOptInfo *outerrel, Path *inner_path,
|
|
|
|
|
Path *outer_path, JoinType jointype,
|
|
|
|
|
JoinPathExtraData *extra)
|
Add Result Cache executor node (take 2)
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
5 years ago
|
|
|
{
|
|
|
|
|
List *param_exprs;
|
|
|
|
|
List *hash_operators;
|
|
|
|
|
ListCell *lc;
|
|
|
|
|
bool binary_mode;
|
Add Result Cache executor node (take 2)
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
5 years ago
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
/* Obviously not if it's disabled */
|
|
|
|
|
if (!enable_memoize)
|
Add Result Cache executor node (take 2)
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
5 years ago
|
|
|
return NULL;
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
/*
|
|
|
|
|
* We can safely not bother with all this unless we expect to perform more
|
|
|
|
|
* than one inner scan. The first scan is always going to be a cache
|
|
|
|
|
* miss. This would likely fail later anyway based on costs, so this is
|
|
|
|
|
* really just to save some wasted effort.
|
|
|
|
|
*/
|
|
|
|
|
if (outer_path->parent->rows < 2)
|
|
|
|
|
return NULL;
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
/*
|
|
|
|
|
* We can only have a memoize node when there's some kind of cache key,
|
Add Result Cache executor node (take 2)
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
5 years ago
|
|
|
* either parameterized path clauses or lateral Vars. No cache key sounds
|
|
|
|
|
* more like something a Materialize node might be more useful for.
|
|
|
|
|
*/
|
|
|
|
|
if ((inner_path->param_info == NULL ||
|
|
|
|
|
inner_path->param_info->ppi_clauses == NIL) &&
|
|
|
|
|
innerrel->lateral_vars == NIL)
|
|
|
|
|
return NULL;
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
/*
|
|
|
|
|
* Currently we don't do this for SEMI and ANTI joins unless they're
|
|
|
|
|
* marked as inner_unique. This is because nested loop SEMI/ANTI joins
|
|
|
|
|
* don't scan the inner node to completion, which will mean memoize cannot
|
|
|
|
|
* mark the cache entry as complete.
|
Add Result Cache executor node (take 2)
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
5 years ago
|
|
|
*
|
|
|
|
|
* XXX Currently we don't attempt to mark SEMI/ANTI joins as inner_unique
|
|
|
|
|
* = true. Should we? See add_paths_to_joinrel()
|
|
|
|
|
*/
|
|
|
|
|
if (!extra->inner_unique && (jointype == JOIN_SEMI ||
|
|
|
|
|
jointype == JOIN_ANTI))
|
|
|
|
|
return NULL;
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
/*
|
|
|
|
|
* Memoize normally marks cache entries as complete when it runs out of
|
|
|
|
|
* tuples to read from its subplan. However, with unique joins, Nested
|
|
|
|
|
* Loop will skip to the next outer tuple after finding the first matching
|
|
|
|
|
* inner tuple. This means that we may not read the inner side of the
|
|
|
|
|
* join to completion which leaves no opportunity to mark the cache entry
|
|
|
|
|
* as complete. To work around that, when the join is unique we
|
|
|
|
|
* automatically mark cache entries as complete after fetching the first
|
|
|
|
|
* tuple. This works when the entire join condition is parameterized.
|
|
|
|
|
* Otherwise, when the parameterization is only a subset of the join
|
|
|
|
|
* condition, we can't be sure which part of it causes the join to be
|
|
|
|
|
* unique. This means there are no guarantees that only 1 tuple will be
|
|
|
|
|
* read. We cannot mark the cache entry as complete after reading the
|
|
|
|
|
* first tuple without that guarantee. This means the scope of Memoize
|
|
|
|
|
* node's usefulness is limited to only outer rows that have no join
|
|
|
|
|
* partner as this is the only case where Nested Loop would exhaust the
|
|
|
|
|
* inner scan of a unique join. Since the scope is limited to that, we
|
|
|
|
|
* just don't bother making a memoize path in this case.
|
|
|
|
|
*
|
|
|
|
|
* Lateral vars needn't be considered here as they're not considered when
|
|
|
|
|
* determining if the join is unique.
|
|
|
|
|
*
|
|
|
|
|
* XXX this could be enabled if the remaining join quals were made part of
|
|
|
|
|
* the inner scan's filter instead of the join filter. Maybe it's worth
|
|
|
|
|
* considering doing that?
|
|
|
|
|
*/
|
|
|
|
|
if (extra->inner_unique &&
|
|
|
|
|
(inner_path->param_info == NULL ||
|
|
|
|
|
bms_num_members(inner_path->param_info->ppi_serials) <
|
|
|
|
|
list_length(extra->restrictlist)))
|
|
|
|
|
return NULL;
|
|
|
|
|
|
Add Result Cache executor node (take 2)
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
5 years ago
|
|
|
/*
|
|
|
|
|
* We can't use a memoize node if there are volatile functions in the
|
Add Result Cache executor node (take 2)
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
5 years ago
|
|
|
* inner rel's target list or restrict list. A cache hit could reduce the
|
|
|
|
|
* number of calls to these functions.
|
|
|
|
|
*/
|
|
|
|
|
if (contain_volatile_functions((Node *) innerrel->reltarget))
|
|
|
|
|
return NULL;
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
foreach(lc, innerrel->baserestrictinfo)
|
|
|
|
|
{
|
|
|
|
|
RestrictInfo *rinfo = (RestrictInfo *) lfirst(lc);
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
if (contain_volatile_functions((Node *) rinfo))
|
|
|
|
|
return NULL;
|
|
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
/*
|
|
|
|
|
* Also check the parameterized path restrictinfos for volatile functions.
|
|
|
|
|
* Indexed functions must be immutable so shouldn't have any volatile
|
|
|
|
|
* functions, however, with a lateral join the inner scan may not be an
|
|
|
|
|
* index scan.
|
|
|
|
|
*/
|
|
|
|
|
if (inner_path->param_info != NULL)
|
|
|
|
|
{
|
|
|
|
|
foreach(lc, inner_path->param_info->ppi_clauses)
|
|
|
|
|
{
|
|
|
|
|
RestrictInfo *rinfo = (RestrictInfo *) lfirst(lc);
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
if (contain_volatile_functions((Node *) rinfo))
|
|
|
|
|
return NULL;
|
|
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
|
|
Add Result Cache executor node (take 2)
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
5 years ago
|
|
|
/* Check if we have hash ops for each parameter to the path */
|
|
|
|
|
if (paraminfo_get_equal_hashops(root,
|
|
|
|
|
inner_path->param_info,
|
|
|
|
|
outerrel->top_parent ?
|
|
|
|
|
outerrel->top_parent : outerrel,
|
Add Result Cache executor node (take 2)
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
5 years ago
|
|
|
innerrel,
|
|
|
|
|
¶m_exprs,
|
|
|
|
|
&hash_operators,
|
|
|
|
|
&binary_mode))
|
Add Result Cache executor node (take 2)
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
5 years ago
|
|
|
{
|
|
|
|
|
return (Path *) create_memoize_path(root,
|
|
|
|
|
innerrel,
|
|
|
|
|
inner_path,
|
|
|
|
|
param_exprs,
|
|
|
|
|
hash_operators,
|
|
|
|
|
extra->inner_unique,
|
|
|
|
|
binary_mode,
|
|
|
|
|
outer_path->rows);
|
Add Result Cache executor node (take 2)
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
5 years ago
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
return NULL;
|
|
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
/*
|
|
|
|
|
* try_nestloop_path
|
|
|
|
|
* Consider a nestloop join path; if it appears useful, push it into
|
|
|
|
|
* the joinrel's pathlist via add_path().
|
|
|
|
|
*/
|
|
|
|
|
static void
|
|
|
|
|
try_nestloop_path(PlannerInfo *root,
|
|
|
|
|
RelOptInfo *joinrel,
|
|
|
|
|
Path *outer_path,
|
|
|
|
|
Path *inner_path,
|
Code review for foreign/custom join pushdown patch.
Commit e7cb7ee14555cc9c5773e2c102efd6371f6f2005 included some design
decisions that seem pretty questionable to me, and there was quite a lot
of stuff not to like about the documentation and comments. Clean up
as follows:
* Consider foreign joins only between foreign tables on the same server,
rather than between any two foreign tables with the same underlying FDW
handler function. In most if not all cases, the FDW would simply have had
to apply the same-server restriction itself (far more expensively, both for
lack of caching and because it would be repeated for each combination of
input sub-joins), or else risk nasty bugs. Anyone who's really intent on
doing something outside this restriction can always use the
set_join_pathlist_hook.
* Rename fdw_ps_tlist/custom_ps_tlist to fdw_scan_tlist/custom_scan_tlist
to better reflect what they're for, and allow these custom scan tlists
to be used even for base relations.
* Change make_foreignscan() API to include passing the fdw_scan_tlist
value, since the FDW is required to set that. Backwards compatibility
doesn't seem like an adequate reason to expect FDWs to set it in some
ad-hoc extra step, and anyway existing FDWs can just pass NIL.
* Change the API of path-generating subroutines of add_paths_to_joinrel,
and in particular that of GetForeignJoinPaths and set_join_pathlist_hook,
so that various less-used parameters are passed in a struct rather than
as separate parameter-list entries. The objective here is to reduce the
probability that future additions to those parameter lists will result in
source-level API breaks for users of these hooks. It's possible that this
is even a small win for the core code, since most CPU architectures can't
pass more than half a dozen parameters efficiently anyway. I kept root,
joinrel, outerrel, innerrel, and jointype as separate parameters to reduce
code churn in joinpath.c --- in particular, putting jointype into the
struct would have been problematic because of the subroutines' habit of
changing their local copies of that variable.
* Avoid ad-hocery in ExecAssignScanProjectionInfo. It was probably all
right for it to know about IndexOnlyScan, but if the list is to grow
we should refactor the knowledge out to the callers.
* Restore nodeForeignscan.c's previous use of the relcache to avoid
extra GetFdwRoutine lookups for base-relation scans.
* Lots of cleanup of documentation and missed comments. Re-order some
code additions into more logical places.
11 years ago
|
|
|
List *pathkeys,
|
|
|
|
|
JoinType jointype,
|
|
|
|
|
JoinPathExtraData *extra)
|
|
|
|
|
{
|
|
|
|
|
Relids required_outer;
|
|
|
|
|
JoinCostWorkspace workspace;
|
|
|
|
|
RelOptInfo *innerrel = inner_path->parent;
|
|
|
|
|
RelOptInfo *outerrel = outer_path->parent;
|
Basic partition-wise join functionality.
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
8 years ago
|
|
|
Relids innerrelids;
|
|
|
|
|
Relids outerrelids;
|
|
|
|
|
Relids inner_paramrels = PATH_REQ_OUTER(inner_path);
|
|
|
|
|
Relids outer_paramrels = PATH_REQ_OUTER(outer_path);
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
/*
|
|
|
|
|
* If we are forming an outer join at this join, it's nonsensical to use
|
|
|
|
|
* an input path that uses the outer join as part of its parameterization.
|
|
|
|
|
* (This can happen despite our join order restrictions, since those apply
|
|
|
|
|
* to what is in an input relation not what its parameters are.)
|
|
|
|
|
*/
|
|
|
|
|
if (extra->sjinfo->ojrelid != 0 &&
|
|
|
|
|
(bms_is_member(extra->sjinfo->ojrelid, inner_paramrels) ||
|
|
|
|
|
bms_is_member(extra->sjinfo->ojrelid, outer_paramrels)))
|
|
|
|
|
return;
|
|
|
|
|
|
Basic partition-wise join functionality.
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
8 years ago
|
|
|
/*
|
|
|
|
|
* Any parameterization of the input paths refers to topmost parents of
|
|
|
|
|
* the relevant relations, because reparameterize_path_by_child() hasn't
|
|
|
|
|
* been called yet. So we must consider topmost parents of the relations
|
|
|
|
|
* being joined, too, while determining parameterization of the result and
|
|
|
|
|
* checking for disallowed parameterization cases.
|
Basic partition-wise join functionality.
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
8 years ago
|
|
|
*/
|
|
|
|
|
if (innerrel->top_parent_relids)
|
|
|
|
|
innerrelids = innerrel->top_parent_relids;
|
|
|
|
|
else
|
|
|
|
|
innerrelids = innerrel->relids;
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
if (outerrel->top_parent_relids)
|
|
|
|
|
outerrelids = outerrel->top_parent_relids;
|
|
|
|
|
else
|
|
|
|
|
outerrelids = outerrel->relids;
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
/*
|
|
|
|
|
* Check to see if proposed path is still parameterized, and reject if the
|
|
|
|
|
* parameterization wouldn't be sensible --- unless allow_star_schema_join
|
|
|
|
|
* says to allow it anyway. Also, we must reject if have_dangerous_phv
|
|
|
|
|
* doesn't like the look of it, which could only happen if the nestloop is
|
|
|
|
|
* still parameterized.
|
|
|
|
|
*/
|
|
|
|
|
required_outer = calc_nestloop_required_outer(outerrelids, outer_paramrels,
|
|
|
|
|
innerrelids, inner_paramrels);
|
|
|
|
|
if (required_outer &&
|
|
|
|
|
((!bms_overlap(required_outer, extra->param_source_rels) &&
|
|
|
|
|
!allow_star_schema_join(root, outerrelids, inner_paramrels)) ||
|
|
|
|
|
have_dangerous_phv(root, outerrelids, inner_paramrels)))
|
|
|
|
|
{
|
|
|
|
|
/* Waste no memory when we reject a path here */
|
|
|
|
|
bms_free(required_outer);
|
|
|
|
|
return;
|
|
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
/* If we got past that, we shouldn't have any unsafe outer-join refs */
|
|
|
|
|
Assert(!have_unsafe_outer_join_ref(root, outerrelids, inner_paramrels));
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
/*
|
|
|
|
|
* Do a precheck to quickly eliminate obviously-inferior paths. We
|
|
|
|
|
* calculate a cheap lower bound on the path's cost and then use
|
|
|
|
|
* add_path_precheck() to see if the path is clearly going to be dominated
|
|
|
|
|
* by some existing path for the joinrel. If not, do the full pushup with
|
|
|
|
|
* creating a fully valid path structure and submitting it to add_path().
|
|
|
|
|
* The latter two steps are expensive enough to make this two-phase
|
|
|
|
|
* methodology worthwhile.
|
|
|
|
|
*/
|
|
|
|
|
initial_cost_nestloop(root, &workspace, jointype,
|
|
|
|
|
outer_path, inner_path, extra);
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
if (add_path_precheck(joinrel,
|
|
|
|
|
workspace.startup_cost, workspace.total_cost,
|
|
|
|
|
pathkeys, required_outer))
|
|
|
|
|
{
|
Basic partition-wise join functionality.
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
8 years ago
|
|
|
/*
|
|
|
|
|
* If the inner path is parameterized, it is parameterized by the
|
|
|
|
|
* topmost parent of the outer rel, not the outer rel itself. Fix
|
|
|
|
|
* that.
|
|
|
|
|
*/
|
|
|
|
|
if (PATH_PARAM_BY_PARENT(inner_path, outer_path->parent))
|
|
|
|
|
{
|
|
|
|
|
inner_path = reparameterize_path_by_child(root, inner_path,
|
|
|
|
|
outer_path->parent);
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
/*
|
|
|
|
|
* If we could not translate the path, we can't create nest loop
|
|
|
|
|
* path.
|
|
|
|
|
*/
|
|
|
|
|
if (!inner_path)
|
|
|
|
|
{
|
|
|
|
|
bms_free(required_outer);
|
|
|
|
|
return;
|
|
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
add_path(joinrel, (Path *)
|
|
|
|
|
create_nestloop_path(root,
|
|
|
|
|
joinrel,
|
|
|
|
|
jointype,
|
|
|
|
|
&workspace,
|
|
|
|
|
extra,
|
|
|
|
|
outer_path,
|
|
|
|
|
inner_path,
|
Code review for foreign/custom join pushdown patch.
Commit e7cb7ee14555cc9c5773e2c102efd6371f6f2005 included some design
decisions that seem pretty questionable to me, and there was quite a lot
of stuff not to like about the documentation and comments. Clean up
as follows:
* Consider foreign joins only between foreign tables on the same server,
rather than between any two foreign tables with the same underlying FDW
handler function. In most if not all cases, the FDW would simply have had
to apply the same-server restriction itself (far more expensively, both for
lack of caching and because it would be repeated for each combination of
input sub-joins), or else risk nasty bugs. Anyone who's really intent on
doing something outside this restriction can always use the
set_join_pathlist_hook.
* Rename fdw_ps_tlist/custom_ps_tlist to fdw_scan_tlist/custom_scan_tlist
to better reflect what they're for, and allow these custom scan tlists
to be used even for base relations.
* Change make_foreignscan() API to include passing the fdw_scan_tlist
value, since the FDW is required to set that. Backwards compatibility
doesn't seem like an adequate reason to expect FDWs to set it in some
ad-hoc extra step, and anyway existing FDWs can just pass NIL.
* Change the API of path-generating subroutines of add_paths_to_joinrel,
and in particular that of GetForeignJoinPaths and set_join_pathlist_hook,
so that various less-used parameters are passed in a struct rather than
as separate parameter-list entries. The objective here is to reduce the
probability that future additions to those parameter lists will result in
source-level API breaks for users of these hooks. It's possible that this
is even a small win for the core code, since most CPU architectures can't
pass more than half a dozen parameters efficiently anyway. I kept root,
joinrel, outerrel, innerrel, and jointype as separate parameters to reduce
code churn in joinpath.c --- in particular, putting jointype into the
struct would have been problematic because of the subroutines' habit of
changing their local copies of that variable.
* Avoid ad-hocery in ExecAssignScanProjectionInfo. It was probably all
right for it to know about IndexOnlyScan, but if the list is to grow
we should refactor the knowledge out to the callers.
* Restore nodeForeignscan.c's previous use of the relcache to avoid
extra GetFdwRoutine lookups for base-relation scans.
* Lots of cleanup of documentation and missed comments. Re-order some
code additions into more logical places.
11 years ago
|
|
|
extra->restrictlist,
|
|
|
|
|
pathkeys,
|
|
|
|
|
required_outer));
|
|
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
|
else
|
|
|
|
|
{
|
|
|
|
|
/* Waste no memory when we reject a path here */
|
|
|
|
|
bms_free(required_outer);
|
|
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
/*
|
|
|
|
|
* try_partial_nestloop_path
|
|
|
|
|
* Consider a partial nestloop join path; if it appears useful, push it into
|
|
|
|
|
* the joinrel's partial_pathlist via add_partial_path().
|
|
|
|
|
*/
|
|
|
|
|
static void
|
|
|
|
|
try_partial_nestloop_path(PlannerInfo *root,
|
|
|
|
|
RelOptInfo *joinrel,
|
|
|
|
|
Path *outer_path,
|
|
|
|
|
Path *inner_path,
|
|
|
|
|
List *pathkeys,
|
|
|
|
|
JoinType jointype,
|
|
|
|
|
JoinPathExtraData *extra)
|
|
|
|
|
{
|
|
|
|
|
JoinCostWorkspace workspace;
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
/*
|
|
|
|
|
* If the inner path is parameterized, the parameterization must be fully
|
|
|
|
|
* satisfied by the proposed outer path. Parameterized partial paths are
|
|
|
|
|
* not supported. The caller should already have verified that no lateral
|
|
|
|
|
* rels are required here.
|
|
|
|
|
*/
|
|
|
|
|
Assert(bms_is_empty(joinrel->lateral_relids));
|
|
|
|
|
if (inner_path->param_info != NULL)
|
|
|
|
|
{
|
|
|
|
|
Relids inner_paramrels = inner_path->param_info->ppi_req_outer;
|
Basic partition-wise join functionality.
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
8 years ago
|
|
|
RelOptInfo *outerrel = outer_path->parent;
|
|
|
|
|
Relids outerrelids;
|
|
|
|
|
|
Basic partition-wise join functionality.
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
8 years ago
|
|
|
/*
|
|
|
|
|
* The inner and outer paths are parameterized, if at all, by the top
|
|
|
|
|
* level parents, not the child relations, so we must use those relids
|
|
|
|
|
* for our parameterization tests.
|
Basic partition-wise join functionality.
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
8 years ago
|
|
|
*/
|
|
|
|
|
if (outerrel->top_parent_relids)
|
|
|
|
|
outerrelids = outerrel->top_parent_relids;
|
|
|
|
|
else
|
|
|
|
|
outerrelids = outerrel->relids;
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
if (!bms_is_subset(inner_paramrels, outerrelids))
|
|
|
|
|
return;
|
|
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
/*
|
|
|
|
|
* Before creating a path, get a quick lower bound on what it is likely to
|
|
|
|
|
* cost. Bail out right away if it looks terrible.
|
|
|
|
|
*/
|
|
|
|
|
initial_cost_nestloop(root, &workspace, jointype,
|
|
|
|
|
outer_path, inner_path, extra);
|
|
|
|
|
if (!add_partial_path_precheck(joinrel, workspace.total_cost, pathkeys))
|
|
|
|
|
return;
|
|
|
|
|
|
Basic partition-wise join functionality.
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
8 years ago
|
|
|
/*
|
|
|
|
|
* If the inner path is parameterized, it is parameterized by the topmost
|
|
|
|
|
* parent of the outer rel, not the outer rel itself. Fix that.
|
|
|
|
|
*/
|
|
|
|
|
if (PATH_PARAM_BY_PARENT(inner_path, outer_path->parent))
|
|
|
|
|
{
|
|
|
|
|
inner_path = reparameterize_path_by_child(root, inner_path,
|
|
|
|
|
outer_path->parent);
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
/*
|
|
|
|
|
* If we could not translate the path, we can't create nest loop path.
|
|
|
|
|
*/
|
|
|
|
|
if (!inner_path)
|
|
|
|
|
return;
|
|
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
/* Might be good enough to be worth trying, so let's try it. */
|
|
|
|
|
add_partial_path(joinrel, (Path *)
|
|
|
|
|
create_nestloop_path(root,
|
|
|
|
|
joinrel,
|
|
|
|
|
jointype,
|
|
|
|
|
&workspace,
|
|
|
|
|
extra,
|
|
|
|
|
outer_path,
|
|
|
|
|
inner_path,
|
|
|
|
|
extra->restrictlist,
|
|
|
|
|
pathkeys,
|
|
|
|
|
NULL));
|
|
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
/*
|
|
|
|
|
* try_mergejoin_path
|
|
|
|
|
* Consider a merge join path; if it appears useful, push it into
|
|
|
|
|
* the joinrel's pathlist via add_path().
|
|
|
|
|
*/
|
|
|
|
|
static void
|
|
|
|
|
try_mergejoin_path(PlannerInfo *root,
|
|
|
|
|
RelOptInfo *joinrel,
|
|
|
|
|
Path *outer_path,
|
|
|
|
|
Path *inner_path,
|
|
|
|
|
List *pathkeys,
|
|
|
|
|
List *mergeclauses,
|
|
|
|
|
List *outersortkeys,
|
Code review for foreign/custom join pushdown patch.
Commit e7cb7ee14555cc9c5773e2c102efd6371f6f2005 included some design
decisions that seem pretty questionable to me, and there was quite a lot
of stuff not to like about the documentation and comments. Clean up
as follows:
* Consider foreign joins only between foreign tables on the same server,
rather than between any two foreign tables with the same underlying FDW
handler function. In most if not all cases, the FDW would simply have had
to apply the same-server restriction itself (far more expensively, both for
lack of caching and because it would be repeated for each combination of
input sub-joins), or else risk nasty bugs. Anyone who's really intent on
doing something outside this restriction can always use the
set_join_pathlist_hook.
* Rename fdw_ps_tlist/custom_ps_tlist to fdw_scan_tlist/custom_scan_tlist
to better reflect what they're for, and allow these custom scan tlists
to be used even for base relations.
* Change make_foreignscan() API to include passing the fdw_scan_tlist
value, since the FDW is required to set that. Backwards compatibility
doesn't seem like an adequate reason to expect FDWs to set it in some
ad-hoc extra step, and anyway existing FDWs can just pass NIL.
* Change the API of path-generating subroutines of add_paths_to_joinrel,
and in particular that of GetForeignJoinPaths and set_join_pathlist_hook,
so that various less-used parameters are passed in a struct rather than
as separate parameter-list entries. The objective here is to reduce the
probability that future additions to those parameter lists will result in
source-level API breaks for users of these hooks. It's possible that this
is even a small win for the core code, since most CPU architectures can't
pass more than half a dozen parameters efficiently anyway. I kept root,
joinrel, outerrel, innerrel, and jointype as separate parameters to reduce
code churn in joinpath.c --- in particular, putting jointype into the
struct would have been problematic because of the subroutines' habit of
changing their local copies of that variable.
* Avoid ad-hocery in ExecAssignScanProjectionInfo. It was probably all
right for it to know about IndexOnlyScan, but if the list is to grow
we should refactor the knowledge out to the callers.
* Restore nodeForeignscan.c's previous use of the relcache to avoid
extra GetFdwRoutine lookups for base-relation scans.
* Lots of cleanup of documentation and missed comments. Re-order some
code additions into more logical places.
11 years ago
|
|
|
List *innersortkeys,
|
|
|
|
|
JoinType jointype,
|
|
|
|
|
JoinPathExtraData *extra,
|
|
|
|
|
bool is_partial)
|
|
|
|
|
{
|
|
|
|
|
Relids required_outer;
|
|
|
|
|
JoinCostWorkspace workspace;
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
if (is_partial)
|
|
|
|
|
{
|
|
|
|
|
try_partial_mergejoin_path(root,
|
|
|
|
|
joinrel,
|
|
|
|
|
outer_path,
|
|
|
|
|
inner_path,
|
|
|
|
|
pathkeys,
|
|
|
|
|
mergeclauses,
|
|
|
|
|
outersortkeys,
|
|
|
|
|
innersortkeys,
|
|
|
|
|
jointype,
|
|
|
|
|
extra);
|
|
|
|
|
return;
|
|
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
/*
|
|
|
|
|
* If we are forming an outer join at this join, it's nonsensical to use
|
|
|
|
|
* an input path that uses the outer join as part of its parameterization.
|
|
|
|
|
* (This can happen despite our join order restrictions, since those apply
|
|
|
|
|
* to what is in an input relation not what its parameters are.)
|
|
|
|
|
*/
|
|
|
|
|
if (extra->sjinfo->ojrelid != 0 &&
|
|
|
|
|
(bms_is_member(extra->sjinfo->ojrelid, PATH_REQ_OUTER(inner_path)) ||
|
|
|
|
|
bms_is_member(extra->sjinfo->ojrelid, PATH_REQ_OUTER(outer_path))))
|
|
|
|
|
return;
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
/*
|
|
|
|
|
* Check to see if proposed path is still parameterized, and reject if the
|
|
|
|
|
* parameterization wouldn't be sensible.
|
|
|
|
|
*/
|
|
|
|
|
required_outer = calc_non_nestloop_required_outer(outer_path,
|
|
|
|
|
inner_path);
|
|
|
|
|
if (required_outer &&
|
Code review for foreign/custom join pushdown patch.
Commit e7cb7ee14555cc9c5773e2c102efd6371f6f2005 included some design
decisions that seem pretty questionable to me, and there was quite a lot
of stuff not to like about the documentation and comments. Clean up
as follows:
* Consider foreign joins only between foreign tables on the same server,
rather than between any two foreign tables with the same underlying FDW
handler function. In most if not all cases, the FDW would simply have had
to apply the same-server restriction itself (far more expensively, both for
lack of caching and because it would be repeated for each combination of
input sub-joins), or else risk nasty bugs. Anyone who's really intent on
doing something outside this restriction can always use the
set_join_pathlist_hook.
* Rename fdw_ps_tlist/custom_ps_tlist to fdw_scan_tlist/custom_scan_tlist
to better reflect what they're for, and allow these custom scan tlists
to be used even for base relations.
* Change make_foreignscan() API to include passing the fdw_scan_tlist
value, since the FDW is required to set that. Backwards compatibility
doesn't seem like an adequate reason to expect FDWs to set it in some
ad-hoc extra step, and anyway existing FDWs can just pass NIL.
* Change the API of path-generating subroutines of add_paths_to_joinrel,
and in particular that of GetForeignJoinPaths and set_join_pathlist_hook,
so that various less-used parameters are passed in a struct rather than
as separate parameter-list entries. The objective here is to reduce the
probability that future additions to those parameter lists will result in
source-level API breaks for users of these hooks. It's possible that this
is even a small win for the core code, since most CPU architectures can't
pass more than half a dozen parameters efficiently anyway. I kept root,
joinrel, outerrel, innerrel, and jointype as separate parameters to reduce
code churn in joinpath.c --- in particular, putting jointype into the
struct would have been problematic because of the subroutines' habit of
changing their local copies of that variable.
* Avoid ad-hocery in ExecAssignScanProjectionInfo. It was probably all
right for it to know about IndexOnlyScan, but if the list is to grow
we should refactor the knowledge out to the callers.
* Restore nodeForeignscan.c's previous use of the relcache to avoid
extra GetFdwRoutine lookups for base-relation scans.
* Lots of cleanup of documentation and missed comments. Re-order some
code additions into more logical places.
11 years ago
|
|
|
!bms_overlap(required_outer, extra->param_source_rels))
|
|
|
|
|
{
|
|
|
|
|
/* Waste no memory when we reject a path here */
|
|
|
|
|
bms_free(required_outer);
|
|
|
|
|
return;
|
|
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
/*
|
|
|
|
|
* If the given paths are already well enough ordered, we can skip doing
|
|
|
|
|
* an explicit sort.
|
|
|
|
|
*/
|
|
|
|
|
if (outersortkeys &&
|
|
|
|
|
pathkeys_contained_in(outersortkeys, outer_path->pathkeys))
|
|
|
|
|
outersortkeys = NIL;
|
|
|
|
|
if (innersortkeys &&
|
|
|
|
|
pathkeys_contained_in(innersortkeys, inner_path->pathkeys))
|
|
|
|
|
innersortkeys = NIL;
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
/*
|
|
|
|
|
* See comments in try_nestloop_path().
|
|
|
|
|
*/
|
|
|
|
|
initial_cost_mergejoin(root, &workspace, jointype, mergeclauses,
|
|
|
|
|
outer_path, inner_path,
|
|
|
|
|
outersortkeys, innersortkeys,
|
|
|
|
|
extra);
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
if (add_path_precheck(joinrel,
|
|
|
|
|
workspace.startup_cost, workspace.total_cost,
|
|
|
|
|
pathkeys, required_outer))
|
|
|
|
|
{
|
|
|
|
|
add_path(joinrel, (Path *)
|
|
|
|
|
create_mergejoin_path(root,
|
|
|
|
|
joinrel,
|
|
|
|
|
jointype,
|
|
|
|
|
&workspace,
|
|
|
|
|
extra,
|
|
|
|
|
outer_path,
|
|
|
|
|
inner_path,
|
Code review for foreign/custom join pushdown patch.
Commit e7cb7ee14555cc9c5773e2c102efd6371f6f2005 included some design
decisions that seem pretty questionable to me, and there was quite a lot
of stuff not to like about the documentation and comments. Clean up
as follows:
* Consider foreign joins only between foreign tables on the same server,
rather than between any two foreign tables with the same underlying FDW
handler function. In most if not all cases, the FDW would simply have had
to apply the same-server restriction itself (far more expensively, both for
lack of caching and because it would be repeated for each combination of
input sub-joins), or else risk nasty bugs. Anyone who's really intent on
doing something outside this restriction can always use the
set_join_pathlist_hook.
* Rename fdw_ps_tlist/custom_ps_tlist to fdw_scan_tlist/custom_scan_tlist
to better reflect what they're for, and allow these custom scan tlists
to be used even for base relations.
* Change make_foreignscan() API to include passing the fdw_scan_tlist
value, since the FDW is required to set that. Backwards compatibility
doesn't seem like an adequate reason to expect FDWs to set it in some
ad-hoc extra step, and anyway existing FDWs can just pass NIL.
* Change the API of path-generating subroutines of add_paths_to_joinrel,
and in particular that of GetForeignJoinPaths and set_join_pathlist_hook,
so that various less-used parameters are passed in a struct rather than
as separate parameter-list entries. The objective here is to reduce the
probability that future additions to those parameter lists will result in
source-level API breaks for users of these hooks. It's possible that this
is even a small win for the core code, since most CPU architectures can't
pass more than half a dozen parameters efficiently anyway. I kept root,
joinrel, outerrel, innerrel, and jointype as separate parameters to reduce
code churn in joinpath.c --- in particular, putting jointype into the
struct would have been problematic because of the subroutines' habit of
changing their local copies of that variable.
* Avoid ad-hocery in ExecAssignScanProjectionInfo. It was probably all
right for it to know about IndexOnlyScan, but if the list is to grow
we should refactor the knowledge out to the callers.
* Restore nodeForeignscan.c's previous use of the relcache to avoid
extra GetFdwRoutine lookups for base-relation scans.
* Lots of cleanup of documentation and missed comments. Re-order some
code additions into more logical places.
11 years ago
|
|
|
extra->restrictlist,
|
|
|
|
|
pathkeys,
|
|
|
|
|
required_outer,
|
|
|
|
|
mergeclauses,
|
|
|
|
|
outersortkeys,
|
|
|
|
|
innersortkeys));
|
|
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
|
else
|
|
|
|
|
{
|
|
|
|
|
/* Waste no memory when we reject a path here */
|
|
|
|
|
bms_free(required_outer);
|
|
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
/*
|
|
|
|
|
* try_partial_mergejoin_path
|
|
|
|
|
* Consider a partial merge join path; if it appears useful, push it into
|
|
|
|
|
* the joinrel's pathlist via add_partial_path().
|
|
|
|
|
*/
|
|
|
|
|
static void
|
|
|
|
|
try_partial_mergejoin_path(PlannerInfo *root,
|
|
|
|
|
RelOptInfo *joinrel,
|
|
|
|
|
Path *outer_path,
|
|
|
|
|
Path *inner_path,
|
|
|
|
|
List *pathkeys,
|
|
|
|
|
List *mergeclauses,
|
|
|
|
|
List *outersortkeys,
|
|
|
|
|
List *innersortkeys,
|
|
|
|
|
JoinType jointype,
|
|
|
|
|
JoinPathExtraData *extra)
|
|
|
|
|
{
|
|
|
|
|
JoinCostWorkspace workspace;
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
/*
|
|
|
|
|
* See comments in try_partial_hashjoin_path().
|
|
|
|
|
*/
|
|
|
|
|
Assert(bms_is_empty(joinrel->lateral_relids));
|
|
|
|
|
if (inner_path->param_info != NULL)
|
|
|
|
|
{
|
|
|
|
|
Relids inner_paramrels = inner_path->param_info->ppi_req_outer;
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
if (!bms_is_empty(inner_paramrels))
|
|
|
|
|
return;
|
|
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
/*
|
|
|
|
|
* If the given paths are already well enough ordered, we can skip doing
|
|
|
|
|
* an explicit sort.
|
|
|
|
|
*/
|
|
|
|
|
if (outersortkeys &&
|
|
|
|
|
pathkeys_contained_in(outersortkeys, outer_path->pathkeys))
|
|
|
|
|
outersortkeys = NIL;
|
|
|
|
|
if (innersortkeys &&
|
|
|
|
|
pathkeys_contained_in(innersortkeys, inner_path->pathkeys))
|
|
|
|
|
innersortkeys = NIL;
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
/*
|
|
|
|
|
* See comments in try_partial_nestloop_path().
|
|
|
|
|
*/
|
|
|
|
|
initial_cost_mergejoin(root, &workspace, jointype, mergeclauses,
|
|
|
|
|
outer_path, inner_path,
|
|
|
|
|
outersortkeys, innersortkeys,
|
|
|
|
|
extra);
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
if (!add_partial_path_precheck(joinrel, workspace.total_cost, pathkeys))
|
|
|
|
|
return;
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
/* Might be good enough to be worth trying, so let's try it. */
|
|
|
|
|
add_partial_path(joinrel, (Path *)
|
|
|
|
|
create_mergejoin_path(root,
|
|
|
|
|
joinrel,
|
|
|
|
|
jointype,
|
|
|
|
|
&workspace,
|
|
|
|
|
extra,
|
|
|
|
|
outer_path,
|
|
|
|
|
inner_path,
|
|
|
|
|
extra->restrictlist,
|
|
|
|
|
pathkeys,
|
|
|
|
|
NULL,
|
|
|
|
|
mergeclauses,
|
|
|
|
|
outersortkeys,
|
|
|
|
|
innersortkeys));
|
|
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
/*
|
|
|
|
|
* try_hashjoin_path
|
|
|
|
|
* Consider a hash join path; if it appears useful, push it into
|
|
|
|
|
* the joinrel's pathlist via add_path().
|
|
|
|
|
*/
|
|
|
|
|
static void
|
|
|
|
|
try_hashjoin_path(PlannerInfo *root,
|
|
|
|
|
RelOptInfo *joinrel,
|
|
|
|
|
Path *outer_path,
|
|
|
|
|
Path *inner_path,
|
Code review for foreign/custom join pushdown patch.
Commit e7cb7ee14555cc9c5773e2c102efd6371f6f2005 included some design
decisions that seem pretty questionable to me, and there was quite a lot
of stuff not to like about the documentation and comments. Clean up
as follows:
* Consider foreign joins only between foreign tables on the same server,
rather than between any two foreign tables with the same underlying FDW
handler function. In most if not all cases, the FDW would simply have had
to apply the same-server restriction itself (far more expensively, both for
lack of caching and because it would be repeated for each combination of
input sub-joins), or else risk nasty bugs. Anyone who's really intent on
doing something outside this restriction can always use the
set_join_pathlist_hook.
* Rename fdw_ps_tlist/custom_ps_tlist to fdw_scan_tlist/custom_scan_tlist
to better reflect what they're for, and allow these custom scan tlists
to be used even for base relations.
* Change make_foreignscan() API to include passing the fdw_scan_tlist
value, since the FDW is required to set that. Backwards compatibility
doesn't seem like an adequate reason to expect FDWs to set it in some
ad-hoc extra step, and anyway existing FDWs can just pass NIL.
* Change the API of path-generating subroutines of add_paths_to_joinrel,
and in particular that of GetForeignJoinPaths and set_join_pathlist_hook,
so that various less-used parameters are passed in a struct rather than
as separate parameter-list entries. The objective here is to reduce the
probability that future additions to those parameter lists will result in
source-level API breaks for users of these hooks. It's possible that this
is even a small win for the core code, since most CPU architectures can't
pass more than half a dozen parameters efficiently anyway. I kept root,
joinrel, outerrel, innerrel, and jointype as separate parameters to reduce
code churn in joinpath.c --- in particular, putting jointype into the
struct would have been problematic because of the subroutines' habit of
changing their local copies of that variable.
* Avoid ad-hocery in ExecAssignScanProjectionInfo. It was probably all
right for it to know about IndexOnlyScan, but if the list is to grow
we should refactor the knowledge out to the callers.
* Restore nodeForeignscan.c's previous use of the relcache to avoid
extra GetFdwRoutine lookups for base-relation scans.
* Lots of cleanup of documentation and missed comments. Re-order some
code additions into more logical places.
11 years ago
|
|
|
List *hashclauses,
|
|
|
|
|
JoinType jointype,
|
|
|
|
|
JoinPathExtraData *extra)
|
|
|
|
|
{
|
|
|
|
|
Relids required_outer;
|
|
|
|
|
JoinCostWorkspace workspace;
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
/*
|
|
|
|
|
* If we are forming an outer join at this join, it's nonsensical to use
|
|
|
|
|
* an input path that uses the outer join as part of its parameterization.
|
|
|
|
|
* (This can happen despite our join order restrictions, since those apply
|
|
|
|
|
* to what is in an input relation not what its parameters are.)
|
|
|
|
|
*/
|
|
|
|
|
if (extra->sjinfo->ojrelid != 0 &&
|
|
|
|
|
(bms_is_member(extra->sjinfo->ojrelid, PATH_REQ_OUTER(inner_path)) ||
|
|
|
|
|
bms_is_member(extra->sjinfo->ojrelid, PATH_REQ_OUTER(outer_path))))
|
|
|
|
|
return;
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
/*
|
|
|
|
|
* Check to see if proposed path is still parameterized, and reject if the
|
|
|
|
|
* parameterization wouldn't be sensible.
|
|
|
|
|
*/
|
|
|
|
|
required_outer = calc_non_nestloop_required_outer(outer_path,
|
|
|
|
|
inner_path);
|
|
|
|
|
if (required_outer &&
|
Code review for foreign/custom join pushdown patch.
Commit e7cb7ee14555cc9c5773e2c102efd6371f6f2005 included some design
decisions that seem pretty questionable to me, and there was quite a lot
of stuff not to like about the documentation and comments. Clean up
as follows:
* Consider foreign joins only between foreign tables on the same server,
rather than between any two foreign tables with the same underlying FDW
handler function. In most if not all cases, the FDW would simply have had
to apply the same-server restriction itself (far more expensively, both for
lack of caching and because it would be repeated for each combination of
input sub-joins), or else risk nasty bugs. Anyone who's really intent on
doing something outside this restriction can always use the
set_join_pathlist_hook.
* Rename fdw_ps_tlist/custom_ps_tlist to fdw_scan_tlist/custom_scan_tlist
to better reflect what they're for, and allow these custom scan tlists
to be used even for base relations.
* Change make_foreignscan() API to include passing the fdw_scan_tlist
value, since the FDW is required to set that. Backwards compatibility
doesn't seem like an adequate reason to expect FDWs to set it in some
ad-hoc extra step, and anyway existing FDWs can just pass NIL.
* Change the API of path-generating subroutines of add_paths_to_joinrel,
and in particular that of GetForeignJoinPaths and set_join_pathlist_hook,
so that various less-used parameters are passed in a struct rather than
as separate parameter-list entries. The objective here is to reduce the
probability that future additions to those parameter lists will result in
source-level API breaks for users of these hooks. It's possible that this
is even a small win for the core code, since most CPU architectures can't
pass more than half a dozen parameters efficiently anyway. I kept root,
joinrel, outerrel, innerrel, and jointype as separate parameters to reduce
code churn in joinpath.c --- in particular, putting jointype into the
struct would have been problematic because of the subroutines' habit of
changing their local copies of that variable.
* Avoid ad-hocery in ExecAssignScanProjectionInfo. It was probably all
right for it to know about IndexOnlyScan, but if the list is to grow
we should refactor the knowledge out to the callers.
* Restore nodeForeignscan.c's previous use of the relcache to avoid
extra GetFdwRoutine lookups for base-relation scans.
* Lots of cleanup of documentation and missed comments. Re-order some
code additions into more logical places.
11 years ago
|
|
|
!bms_overlap(required_outer, extra->param_source_rels))
|
|
|
|
|
{
|
|
|
|
|
/* Waste no memory when we reject a path here */
|
|
|
|
|
bms_free(required_outer);
|
|
|
|
|
return;
|
|
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
/*
|
|
|
|
|
* See comments in try_nestloop_path(). Also note that hashjoin paths
|
|
|
|
|
* never have any output pathkeys, per comments in create_hashjoin_path.
|
|
|
|
|
*/
|
|
|
|
|
initial_cost_hashjoin(root, &workspace, jointype, hashclauses,
|
Add parallel-aware hash joins.
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.com
https://postgr.es/m/CAEepm=37HKyJ4U6XOLi=JgfSHM3o6B-GaeO-6hkOmneTDkH+Uw@mail.gmail.com
8 years ago
|
|
|
outer_path, inner_path, extra, false);
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
if (add_path_precheck(joinrel,
|
|
|
|
|
workspace.startup_cost, workspace.total_cost,
|
|
|
|
|
NIL, required_outer))
|
|
|
|
|
{
|
|
|
|
|
add_path(joinrel, (Path *)
|
|
|
|
|
create_hashjoin_path(root,
|
|
|
|
|
joinrel,
|
|
|
|
|
jointype,
|
|
|
|
|
&workspace,
|
|
|
|
|
extra,
|
|
|
|
|
outer_path,
|
|
|
|
|
inner_path,
|
Add parallel-aware hash joins.
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.com
https://postgr.es/m/CAEepm=37HKyJ4U6XOLi=JgfSHM3o6B-GaeO-6hkOmneTDkH+Uw@mail.gmail.com
8 years ago
|
|
|
false, /* parallel_hash */
|
Code review for foreign/custom join pushdown patch.
Commit e7cb7ee14555cc9c5773e2c102efd6371f6f2005 included some design
decisions that seem pretty questionable to me, and there was quite a lot
of stuff not to like about the documentation and comments. Clean up
as follows:
* Consider foreign joins only between foreign tables on the same server,
rather than between any two foreign tables with the same underlying FDW
handler function. In most if not all cases, the FDW would simply have had
to apply the same-server restriction itself (far more expensively, both for
lack of caching and because it would be repeated for each combination of
input sub-joins), or else risk nasty bugs. Anyone who's really intent on
doing something outside this restriction can always use the
set_join_pathlist_hook.
* Rename fdw_ps_tlist/custom_ps_tlist to fdw_scan_tlist/custom_scan_tlist
to better reflect what they're for, and allow these custom scan tlists
to be used even for base relations.
* Change make_foreignscan() API to include passing the fdw_scan_tlist
value, since the FDW is required to set that. Backwards compatibility
doesn't seem like an adequate reason to expect FDWs to set it in some
ad-hoc extra step, and anyway existing FDWs can just pass NIL.
* Change the API of path-generating subroutines of add_paths_to_joinrel,
and in particular that of GetForeignJoinPaths and set_join_pathlist_hook,
so that various less-used parameters are passed in a struct rather than
as separate parameter-list entries. The objective here is to reduce the
probability that future additions to those parameter lists will result in
source-level API breaks for users of these hooks. It's possible that this
is even a small win for the core code, since most CPU architectures can't
pass more than half a dozen parameters efficiently anyway. I kept root,
joinrel, outerrel, innerrel, and jointype as separate parameters to reduce
code churn in joinpath.c --- in particular, putting jointype into the
struct would have been problematic because of the subroutines' habit of
changing their local copies of that variable.
* Avoid ad-hocery in ExecAssignScanProjectionInfo. It was probably all
right for it to know about IndexOnlyScan, but if the list is to grow
we should refactor the knowledge out to the callers.
* Restore nodeForeignscan.c's previous use of the relcache to avoid
extra GetFdwRoutine lookups for base-relation scans.
* Lots of cleanup of documentation and missed comments. Re-order some
code additions into more logical places.
11 years ago
|
|
|
extra->restrictlist,
|
|
|
|
|
required_outer,
|
|
|
|
|
hashclauses));
|
|
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
|
else
|
|
|
|
|
{
|
|
|
|
|
/* Waste no memory when we reject a path here */
|
|
|
|
|
bms_free(required_outer);
|
|
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
/*
|
|
|
|
|
* try_partial_hashjoin_path
|
|
|
|
|
* Consider a partial hashjoin join path; if it appears useful, push it into
|
|
|
|
|
* the joinrel's partial_pathlist via add_partial_path().
|
Add parallel-aware hash joins.
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.com
https://postgr.es/m/CAEepm=37HKyJ4U6XOLi=JgfSHM3o6B-GaeO-6hkOmneTDkH+Uw@mail.gmail.com
8 years ago
|
|
|
* The outer side is partial. If parallel_hash is true, then the inner path
|
|
|
|
|
* must be partial and will be run in parallel to create one or more shared
|
|
|
|
|
* hash tables; otherwise the inner path must be complete and a copy of it
|
|
|
|
|
* is run in every process to create separate identical private hash tables.
|
|
|
|
|
*/
|
|
|
|
|
static void
|
|
|
|
|
try_partial_hashjoin_path(PlannerInfo *root,
|
|
|
|
|
RelOptInfo *joinrel,
|
|
|
|
|
Path *outer_path,
|
|
|
|
|
Path *inner_path,
|
|
|
|
|
List *hashclauses,
|
|
|
|
|
JoinType jointype,
|
Add parallel-aware hash joins.
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.com
https://postgr.es/m/CAEepm=37HKyJ4U6XOLi=JgfSHM3o6B-GaeO-6hkOmneTDkH+Uw@mail.gmail.com
8 years ago
|
|
|
JoinPathExtraData *extra,
|
|
|
|
|
bool parallel_hash)
|
|
|
|
|
{
|
|
|
|
|
JoinCostWorkspace workspace;
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
/*
|
|
|
|
|
* If the inner path is parameterized, the parameterization must be fully
|
|
|
|
|
* satisfied by the proposed outer path. Parameterized partial paths are
|
|
|
|
|
* not supported. The caller should already have verified that no lateral
|
|
|
|
|
* rels are required here.
|
|
|
|
|
*/
|
|
|
|
|
Assert(bms_is_empty(joinrel->lateral_relids));
|
|
|
|
|
if (inner_path->param_info != NULL)
|
|
|
|
|
{
|
|
|
|
|
Relids inner_paramrels = inner_path->param_info->ppi_req_outer;
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
if (!bms_is_empty(inner_paramrels))
|
|
|
|
|
return;
|
|
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
/*
|
|
|
|
|
* Before creating a path, get a quick lower bound on what it is likely to
|
|
|
|
|
* cost. Bail out right away if it looks terrible.
|
|
|
|
|
*/
|
|
|
|
|
initial_cost_hashjoin(root, &workspace, jointype, hashclauses,
|
|
|
|
|
outer_path, inner_path, extra, parallel_hash);
|
|
|
|
|
if (!add_partial_path_precheck(joinrel, workspace.total_cost, NIL))
|
|
|
|
|
return;
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
/* Might be good enough to be worth trying, so let's try it. */
|
|
|
|
|
add_partial_path(joinrel, (Path *)
|
|
|
|
|
create_hashjoin_path(root,
|
|
|
|
|
joinrel,
|
|
|
|
|
jointype,
|
|
|
|
|
&workspace,
|
|
|
|
|
extra,
|
|
|
|
|
outer_path,
|
|
|
|
|
inner_path,
|
Add parallel-aware hash joins.
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.com
https://postgr.es/m/CAEepm=37HKyJ4U6XOLi=JgfSHM3o6B-GaeO-6hkOmneTDkH+Uw@mail.gmail.com
8 years ago
|
|
|
parallel_hash,
|
|
|
|
|
extra->restrictlist,
|
|
|
|
|
NULL,
|
|
|
|
|
hashclauses));
|
|
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
/*
|
|
|
|
|
* clause_sides_match_join
|
|
|
|
|
* Determine whether a join clause is of the right form to use in this join.
|
|
|
|
|
*
|
|
|
|
|
* We already know that the clause is a binary opclause referencing only the
|
|
|
|
|
* rels in the current join. The point here is to check whether it has the
|
|
|
|
|
* form "outerrel_expr op innerrel_expr" or "innerrel_expr op outerrel_expr",
|
|
|
|
|
* rather than mixing outer and inner vars on either side. If it matches,
|
|
|
|
|
* we set the transient flag outer_is_left to identify which side is which.
|
|
|
|
|
*/
|
|
|
|
|
static inline bool
|
|
|
|
|
clause_sides_match_join(RestrictInfo *rinfo, RelOptInfo *outerrel,
|
|
|
|
|
RelOptInfo *innerrel)
|
|
|
|
|
{
|
|
|
|
|
if (bms_is_subset(rinfo->left_relids, outerrel->relids) &&
|
|
|
|
|
bms_is_subset(rinfo->right_relids, innerrel->relids))
|
|
|
|
|
{
|
|
|
|
|
/* lefthand side is outer */
|
|
|
|
|
rinfo->outer_is_left = true;
|
|
|
|
|
return true;
|
|
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
|
else if (bms_is_subset(rinfo->left_relids, innerrel->relids) &&
|
|
|
|
|
bms_is_subset(rinfo->right_relids, outerrel->relids))
|
|
|
|
|
{
|
|
|
|
|
/* righthand side is outer */
|
|
|
|
|
rinfo->outer_is_left = false;
|
|
|
|
|
return true;
|
|
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
|
return false; /* no good for these input relations */
|
|
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
/*
|
|
|
|
|
* sort_inner_and_outer
|
|
|
|
|
* Create mergejoin join paths by explicitly sorting both the outer and
|
|
|
|
|
* inner join relations on each available merge ordering.
|
|
|
|
|
*
|
|
|
|
|
* 'joinrel' is the join relation
|
|
|
|
|
* 'outerrel' is the outer join relation
|
|
|
|
|
* 'innerrel' is the inner join relation
|
|
|
|
|
* 'jointype' is the type of join to do
|
Code review for foreign/custom join pushdown patch.
Commit e7cb7ee14555cc9c5773e2c102efd6371f6f2005 included some design
decisions that seem pretty questionable to me, and there was quite a lot
of stuff not to like about the documentation and comments. Clean up
as follows:
* Consider foreign joins only between foreign tables on the same server,
rather than between any two foreign tables with the same underlying FDW
handler function. In most if not all cases, the FDW would simply have had
to apply the same-server restriction itself (far more expensively, both for
lack of caching and because it would be repeated for each combination of
input sub-joins), or else risk nasty bugs. Anyone who's really intent on
doing something outside this restriction can always use the
set_join_pathlist_hook.
* Rename fdw_ps_tlist/custom_ps_tlist to fdw_scan_tlist/custom_scan_tlist
to better reflect what they're for, and allow these custom scan tlists
to be used even for base relations.
* Change make_foreignscan() API to include passing the fdw_scan_tlist
value, since the FDW is required to set that. Backwards compatibility
doesn't seem like an adequate reason to expect FDWs to set it in some
ad-hoc extra step, and anyway existing FDWs can just pass NIL.
* Change the API of path-generating subroutines of add_paths_to_joinrel,
and in particular that of GetForeignJoinPaths and set_join_pathlist_hook,
so that various less-used parameters are passed in a struct rather than
as separate parameter-list entries. The objective here is to reduce the
probability that future additions to those parameter lists will result in
source-level API breaks for users of these hooks. It's possible that this
is even a small win for the core code, since most CPU architectures can't
pass more than half a dozen parameters efficiently anyway. I kept root,
joinrel, outerrel, innerrel, and jointype as separate parameters to reduce
code churn in joinpath.c --- in particular, putting jointype into the
struct would have been problematic because of the subroutines' habit of
changing their local copies of that variable.
* Avoid ad-hocery in ExecAssignScanProjectionInfo. It was probably all
right for it to know about IndexOnlyScan, but if the list is to grow
we should refactor the knowledge out to the callers.
* Restore nodeForeignscan.c's previous use of the relcache to avoid
extra GetFdwRoutine lookups for base-relation scans.
* Lots of cleanup of documentation and missed comments. Re-order some
code additions into more logical places.
11 years ago
|
|
|
* 'extra' contains additional input values
|
|
|
|
|
*/
|
|
|
|
|
static void
|
|
|
|
|
sort_inner_and_outer(PlannerInfo *root,
|
|
|
|
|
RelOptInfo *joinrel,
|
|
|
|
|
RelOptInfo *outerrel,
|
|
|
|
|
RelOptInfo *innerrel,
|
|
|
|
|
JoinType jointype,
|
Code review for foreign/custom join pushdown patch.
Commit e7cb7ee14555cc9c5773e2c102efd6371f6f2005 included some design
decisions that seem pretty questionable to me, and there was quite a lot
of stuff not to like about the documentation and comments. Clean up
as follows:
* Consider foreign joins only between foreign tables on the same server,
rather than between any two foreign tables with the same underlying FDW
handler function. In most if not all cases, the FDW would simply have had
to apply the same-server restriction itself (far more expensively, both for
lack of caching and because it would be repeated for each combination of
input sub-joins), or else risk nasty bugs. Anyone who's really intent on
doing something outside this restriction can always use the
set_join_pathlist_hook.
* Rename fdw_ps_tlist/custom_ps_tlist to fdw_scan_tlist/custom_scan_tlist
to better reflect what they're for, and allow these custom scan tlists
to be used even for base relations.
* Change make_foreignscan() API to include passing the fdw_scan_tlist
value, since the FDW is required to set that. Backwards compatibility
doesn't seem like an adequate reason to expect FDWs to set it in some
ad-hoc extra step, and anyway existing FDWs can just pass NIL.
* Change the API of path-generating subroutines of add_paths_to_joinrel,
and in particular that of GetForeignJoinPaths and set_join_pathlist_hook,
so that various less-used parameters are passed in a struct rather than
as separate parameter-list entries. The objective here is to reduce the
probability that future additions to those parameter lists will result in
source-level API breaks for users of these hooks. It's possible that this
is even a small win for the core code, since most CPU architectures can't
pass more than half a dozen parameters efficiently anyway. I kept root,
joinrel, outerrel, innerrel, and jointype as separate parameters to reduce
code churn in joinpath.c --- in particular, putting jointype into the
struct would have been problematic because of the subroutines' habit of
changing their local copies of that variable.
* Avoid ad-hocery in ExecAssignScanProjectionInfo. It was probably all
right for it to know about IndexOnlyScan, but if the list is to grow
we should refactor the knowledge out to the callers.
* Restore nodeForeignscan.c's previous use of the relcache to avoid
extra GetFdwRoutine lookups for base-relation scans.
* Lots of cleanup of documentation and missed comments. Re-order some
code additions into more logical places.
11 years ago
|
|
|
JoinPathExtraData *extra)
|
|
|
|
|
{
|
|
|
|
|
JoinType save_jointype = jointype;
|
|
|
|
|
Path *outer_path;
|
|
|
|
|
Path *inner_path;
|
|
|
|
|
Path *cheapest_partial_outer = NULL;
|
|
|
|
|
Path *cheapest_safe_inner = NULL;
|
|
|
|
|
List *all_pathkeys;
|
|
|
|
|
ListCell *l;
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
/*
|
|
|
|
|
* We only consider the cheapest-total-cost input paths, since we are
|
|
|
|
|
* assuming here that a sort is required. We will consider
|
|
|
|
|
* cheapest-startup-cost input paths later, and only if they don't need a
|
|
|
|
|
* sort.
|
|
|
|
|
*
|
Adjust definition of cheapest_total_path to work better with LATERAL.
In the initial cut at LATERAL, I kept the rule that cheapest_total_path
was always unparameterized, which meant it had to be NULL if the relation
has no unparameterized paths. It turns out to work much more nicely if
we always have *some* path nominated as cheapest-total for each relation.
In particular, let's still say it's the cheapest unparameterized path if
there is one; if not, take the cheapest-total-cost path among those of
the minimum available parameterization. (The first rule is actually
a special case of the second.)
This allows reversion of some temporary lobotomizations I'd put in place.
In particular, the planner can now consider hash and merge joins for
joins below a parameter-supplying nestloop, even if there aren't any
unparameterized paths available. This should bring planning of
LATERAL-containing queries to the same level as queries not using that
feature.
Along the way, simplify management of parameterized paths in add_path()
and friends. In the original coding for parameterized paths in 9.2,
I tried to minimize the logic changes in add_path(), so it just treated
parameterization as yet another dimension of comparison for paths.
We later made it ignore pathkeys (sort ordering) of parameterized paths,
on the grounds that ordering isn't a useful property for the path on the
inside of a nestloop, so we might as well get rid of useless parameterized
paths as quickly as possible. But we didn't take that reasoning as far as
we should have. Startup cost isn't a useful property inside a nestloop
either, so add_path() ought to discount startup cost of parameterized paths
as well. Having done that, the secondary sorting I'd implemented (in
add_parameterized_path) is no longer needed --- any parameterized path that
survives add_path() at all is worth considering at higher levels. So this
should be a bit faster as well as simpler.
14 years ago
|
|
|
* This function intentionally does not consider parameterized input
|
|
|
|
|
* paths, except when the cheapest-total is parameterized. If we did so,
|
Adjust definition of cheapest_total_path to work better with LATERAL.
In the initial cut at LATERAL, I kept the rule that cheapest_total_path
was always unparameterized, which meant it had to be NULL if the relation
has no unparameterized paths. It turns out to work much more nicely if
we always have *some* path nominated as cheapest-total for each relation.
In particular, let's still say it's the cheapest unparameterized path if
there is one; if not, take the cheapest-total-cost path among those of
the minimum available parameterization. (The first rule is actually
a special case of the second.)
This allows reversion of some temporary lobotomizations I'd put in place.
In particular, the planner can now consider hash and merge joins for
joins below a parameter-supplying nestloop, even if there aren't any
unparameterized paths available. This should bring planning of
LATERAL-containing queries to the same level as queries not using that
feature.
Along the way, simplify management of parameterized paths in add_path()
and friends. In the original coding for parameterized paths in 9.2,
I tried to minimize the logic changes in add_path(), so it just treated
parameterization as yet another dimension of comparison for paths.
We later made it ignore pathkeys (sort ordering) of parameterized paths,
on the grounds that ordering isn't a useful property for the path on the
inside of a nestloop, so we might as well get rid of useless parameterized
paths as quickly as possible. But we didn't take that reasoning as far as
we should have. Startup cost isn't a useful property inside a nestloop
either, so add_path() ought to discount startup cost of parameterized paths
as well. Having done that, the secondary sorting I'd implemented (in
add_parameterized_path) is no longer needed --- any parameterized path that
survives add_path() at all is worth considering at higher levels. So this
should be a bit faster as well as simpler.
14 years ago
|
|
|
* we'd have a combinatorial explosion of mergejoin paths of dubious
|
|
|
|
|
* value. This interacts with decisions elsewhere that also discriminate
|
|
|
|
|
* against mergejoins with parameterized inputs; see comments in
|
|
|
|
|
* src/backend/optimizer/README.
|
|
|
|
|
*/
|
|
|
|
|
outer_path = outerrel->cheapest_total_path;
|
|
|
|
|
inner_path = innerrel->cheapest_total_path;
|
|
|
|
|
|
Adjust definition of cheapest_total_path to work better with LATERAL.
In the initial cut at LATERAL, I kept the rule that cheapest_total_path
was always unparameterized, which meant it had to be NULL if the relation
has no unparameterized paths. It turns out to work much more nicely if
we always have *some* path nominated as cheapest-total for each relation.
In particular, let's still say it's the cheapest unparameterized path if
there is one; if not, take the cheapest-total-cost path among those of
the minimum available parameterization. (The first rule is actually
a special case of the second.)
This allows reversion of some temporary lobotomizations I'd put in place.
In particular, the planner can now consider hash and merge joins for
joins below a parameter-supplying nestloop, even if there aren't any
unparameterized paths available. This should bring planning of
LATERAL-containing queries to the same level as queries not using that
feature.
Along the way, simplify management of parameterized paths in add_path()
and friends. In the original coding for parameterized paths in 9.2,
I tried to minimize the logic changes in add_path(), so it just treated
parameterization as yet another dimension of comparison for paths.
We later made it ignore pathkeys (sort ordering) of parameterized paths,
on the grounds that ordering isn't a useful property for the path on the
inside of a nestloop, so we might as well get rid of useless parameterized
paths as quickly as possible. But we didn't take that reasoning as far as
we should have. Startup cost isn't a useful property inside a nestloop
either, so add_path() ought to discount startup cost of parameterized paths
as well. Having done that, the secondary sorting I'd implemented (in
add_parameterized_path) is no longer needed --- any parameterized path that
survives add_path() at all is worth considering at higher levels. So this
should be a bit faster as well as simpler.
14 years ago
|
|
|
/*
|
|
|
|
|
* If either cheapest-total path is parameterized by the other rel, we
|
|
|
|
|
* can't use a mergejoin. (There's no use looking for alternative input
|
|
|
|
|
* paths, since these should already be the least-parameterized available
|
|
|
|
|
* paths.)
|
|
|
|
|
*/
|
|
|
|
|
if (PATH_PARAM_BY_REL(outer_path, innerrel) ||
|
|
|
|
|
PATH_PARAM_BY_REL(inner_path, outerrel))
|
|
|
|
|
return;
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
/*
|
|
|
|
|
* If unique-ification is requested, do it and then handle as a plain
|
|
|
|
|
* inner join.
|
|
|
|
|
*/
|
|
|
|
|
if (jointype == JOIN_UNIQUE_OUTER)
|
|
|
|
|
{
|
|
|
|
|
outer_path = (Path *) create_unique_path(root, outerrel,
|
Code review for foreign/custom join pushdown patch.
Commit e7cb7ee14555cc9c5773e2c102efd6371f6f2005 included some design
decisions that seem pretty questionable to me, and there was quite a lot
of stuff not to like about the documentation and comments. Clean up
as follows:
* Consider foreign joins only between foreign tables on the same server,
rather than between any two foreign tables with the same underlying FDW
handler function. In most if not all cases, the FDW would simply have had
to apply the same-server restriction itself (far more expensively, both for
lack of caching and because it would be repeated for each combination of
input sub-joins), or else risk nasty bugs. Anyone who's really intent on
doing something outside this restriction can always use the
set_join_pathlist_hook.
* Rename fdw_ps_tlist/custom_ps_tlist to fdw_scan_tlist/custom_scan_tlist
to better reflect what they're for, and allow these custom scan tlists
to be used even for base relations.
* Change make_foreignscan() API to include passing the fdw_scan_tlist
value, since the FDW is required to set that. Backwards compatibility
doesn't seem like an adequate reason to expect FDWs to set it in some
ad-hoc extra step, and anyway existing FDWs can just pass NIL.
* Change the API of path-generating subroutines of add_paths_to_joinrel,
and in particular that of GetForeignJoinPaths and set_join_pathlist_hook,
so that various less-used parameters are passed in a struct rather than
as separate parameter-list entries. The objective here is to reduce the
probability that future additions to those parameter lists will result in
source-level API breaks for users of these hooks. It's possible that this
is even a small win for the core code, since most CPU architectures can't
pass more than half a dozen parameters efficiently anyway. I kept root,
joinrel, outerrel, innerrel, and jointype as separate parameters to reduce
code churn in joinpath.c --- in particular, putting jointype into the
struct would have been problematic because of the subroutines' habit of
changing their local copies of that variable.
* Avoid ad-hocery in ExecAssignScanProjectionInfo. It was probably all
right for it to know about IndexOnlyScan, but if the list is to grow
we should refactor the knowledge out to the callers.
* Restore nodeForeignscan.c's previous use of the relcache to avoid
extra GetFdwRoutine lookups for base-relation scans.
* Lots of cleanup of documentation and missed comments. Re-order some
code additions into more logical places.
11 years ago
|
|
|
outer_path, extra->sjinfo);
|
|
|
|
|
Assert(outer_path);
|
|
|
|
|
jointype = JOIN_INNER;
|
|
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
|
else if (jointype == JOIN_UNIQUE_INNER)
|
|
|
|
|
{
|
|
|
|
|
inner_path = (Path *) create_unique_path(root, innerrel,
|
Code review for foreign/custom join pushdown patch.
Commit e7cb7ee14555cc9c5773e2c102efd6371f6f2005 included some design
decisions that seem pretty questionable to me, and there was quite a lot
of stuff not to like about the documentation and comments. Clean up
as follows:
* Consider foreign joins only between foreign tables on the same server,
rather than between any two foreign tables with the same underlying FDW
handler function. In most if not all cases, the FDW would simply have had
to apply the same-server restriction itself (far more expensively, both for
lack of caching and because it would be repeated for each combination of
input sub-joins), or else risk nasty bugs. Anyone who's really intent on
doing something outside this restriction can always use the
set_join_pathlist_hook.
* Rename fdw_ps_tlist/custom_ps_tlist to fdw_scan_tlist/custom_scan_tlist
to better reflect what they're for, and allow these custom scan tlists
to be used even for base relations.
* Change make_foreignscan() API to include passing the fdw_scan_tlist
value, since the FDW is required to set that. Backwards compatibility
doesn't seem like an adequate reason to expect FDWs to set it in some
ad-hoc extra step, and anyway existing FDWs can just pass NIL.
* Change the API of path-generating subroutines of add_paths_to_joinrel,
and in particular that of GetForeignJoinPaths and set_join_pathlist_hook,
so that various less-used parameters are passed in a struct rather than
as separate parameter-list entries. The objective here is to reduce the
probability that future additions to those parameter lists will result in
source-level API breaks for users of these hooks. It's possible that this
is even a small win for the core code, since most CPU architectures can't
pass more than half a dozen parameters efficiently anyway. I kept root,
joinrel, outerrel, innerrel, and jointype as separate parameters to reduce
code churn in joinpath.c --- in particular, putting jointype into the
struct would have been problematic because of the subroutines' habit of
changing their local copies of that variable.
* Avoid ad-hocery in ExecAssignScanProjectionInfo. It was probably all
right for it to know about IndexOnlyScan, but if the list is to grow
we should refactor the knowledge out to the callers.
* Restore nodeForeignscan.c's previous use of the relcache to avoid
extra GetFdwRoutine lookups for base-relation scans.
* Lots of cleanup of documentation and missed comments. Re-order some
code additions into more logical places.
11 years ago
|
|
|
inner_path, extra->sjinfo);
|
|
|
|
|
Assert(inner_path);
|
|
|
|
|
jointype = JOIN_INNER;
|
|
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
/*
|
|
|
|
|
* If the joinrel is parallel-safe, we may be able to consider a partial
|
|
|
|
|
* merge join. However, we can't handle JOIN_UNIQUE_OUTER, because the
|
|
|
|
|
* outer path will be partial, and therefore we won't be able to properly
|
|
|
|
|
* guarantee uniqueness. Similarly, we can't handle JOIN_FULL, JOIN_RIGHT
|
|
|
|
|
* and JOIN_RIGHT_ANTI, because they can produce false null extended rows.
|
|
|
|
|
* Also, the resulting path must not be parameterized.
|
|
|
|
|
*/
|
|
|
|
|
if (joinrel->consider_parallel &&
|
|
|
|
|
save_jointype != JOIN_UNIQUE_OUTER &&
|
|
|
|
|
save_jointype != JOIN_FULL &&
|
|
|
|
|
save_jointype != JOIN_RIGHT &&
|
|
|
|
|
save_jointype != JOIN_RIGHT_ANTI &&
|
|
|
|
|
outerrel->partial_pathlist != NIL &&
|
|
|
|
|
bms_is_empty(joinrel->lateral_relids))
|
|
|
|
|
{
|
|
|
|
|
cheapest_partial_outer = (Path *) linitial(outerrel->partial_pathlist);
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
if (inner_path->parallel_safe)
|
|
|
|
|
cheapest_safe_inner = inner_path;
|
|
|
|
|
else if (save_jointype != JOIN_UNIQUE_INNER)
|
|
|
|
|
cheapest_safe_inner =
|
|
|
|
|
get_cheapest_parallel_safe_total_inner(innerrel->pathlist);
|
|
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
/*
|
|
|
|
|
* Each possible ordering of the available mergejoin clauses will generate
|
|
|
|
|
* a differently-sorted result path at essentially the same cost. We have
|
|
|
|
|
* no basis for choosing one over another at this level of joining, but
|
|
|
|
|
* some sort orders may be more useful than others for higher-level
|
|
|
|
|
* mergejoins, so it's worth considering multiple orderings.
|
|
|
|
|
*
|
|
|
|
|
* Actually, it's not quite true that every mergeclause ordering will
|
|
|
|
|
* generate a different path order, because some of the clauses may be
|
|
|
|
|
* partially redundant (refer to the same EquivalenceClasses). Therefore,
|
|
|
|
|
* what we do is convert the mergeclause list to a list of canonical
|
|
|
|
|
* pathkeys, and then consider different orderings of the pathkeys.
|
|
|
|
|
*
|
|
|
|
|
* Generating a path for *every* permutation of the pathkeys doesn't seem
|
|
|
|
|
* like a winning strategy; the cost in planning time is too high. For
|
|
|
|
|
* now, we generate one path for each pathkey, listing that pathkey first
|
|
|
|
|
* and the rest in random order. This should allow at least a one-clause
|
|
|
|
|
* mergejoin without re-sorting against any other possible mergejoin
|
|
|
|
|
* partner path. But if we've not guessed the right ordering of secondary
|
|
|
|
|
* keys, we may end up evaluating clauses as qpquals when they could have
|
|
|
|
|
* been done as mergeclauses. (In practice, it's rare that there's more
|
|
|
|
|
* than two or three mergeclauses, so expending a huge amount of thought
|
|
|
|
|
* on that is probably not worth it.)
|
|
|
|
|
*
|
|
|
|
|
* The pathkey order returned by select_outer_pathkeys_for_merge() has
|
|
|
|
|
* some heuristics behind it (see that function), so be sure to try it
|
|
|
|
|
* exactly as-is as well as making variants.
|
|
|
|
|
*/
|
|
|
|
|
all_pathkeys = select_outer_pathkeys_for_merge(root,
|
Code review for foreign/custom join pushdown patch.
Commit e7cb7ee14555cc9c5773e2c102efd6371f6f2005 included some design
decisions that seem pretty questionable to me, and there was quite a lot
of stuff not to like about the documentation and comments. Clean up
as follows:
* Consider foreign joins only between foreign tables on the same server,
rather than between any two foreign tables with the same underlying FDW
handler function. In most if not all cases, the FDW would simply have had
to apply the same-server restriction itself (far more expensively, both for
lack of caching and because it would be repeated for each combination of
input sub-joins), or else risk nasty bugs. Anyone who's really intent on
doing something outside this restriction can always use the
set_join_pathlist_hook.
* Rename fdw_ps_tlist/custom_ps_tlist to fdw_scan_tlist/custom_scan_tlist
to better reflect what they're for, and allow these custom scan tlists
to be used even for base relations.
* Change make_foreignscan() API to include passing the fdw_scan_tlist
value, since the FDW is required to set that. Backwards compatibility
doesn't seem like an adequate reason to expect FDWs to set it in some
ad-hoc extra step, and anyway existing FDWs can just pass NIL.
* Change the API of path-generating subroutines of add_paths_to_joinrel,
and in particular that of GetForeignJoinPaths and set_join_pathlist_hook,
so that various less-used parameters are passed in a struct rather than
as separate parameter-list entries. The objective here is to reduce the
probability that future additions to those parameter lists will result in
source-level API breaks for users of these hooks. It's possible that this
is even a small win for the core code, since most CPU architectures can't
pass more than half a dozen parameters efficiently anyway. I kept root,
joinrel, outerrel, innerrel, and jointype as separate parameters to reduce
code churn in joinpath.c --- in particular, putting jointype into the
struct would have been problematic because of the subroutines' habit of
changing their local copies of that variable.
* Avoid ad-hocery in ExecAssignScanProjectionInfo. It was probably all
right for it to know about IndexOnlyScan, but if the list is to grow
we should refactor the knowledge out to the callers.
* Restore nodeForeignscan.c's previous use of the relcache to avoid
extra GetFdwRoutine lookups for base-relation scans.
* Lots of cleanup of documentation and missed comments. Re-order some
code additions into more logical places.
11 years ago
|
|
|
extra->mergeclause_list,
|
|
|
|
|
joinrel);
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
foreach(l, all_pathkeys)
|
|
|
|
|
{
|
|
|
|
|
PathKey *front_pathkey = (PathKey *) lfirst(l);
|
|
|
|
|
List *cur_mergeclauses;
|
|
|
|
|
List *outerkeys;
|
|
|
|
|
List *innerkeys;
|
|
|
|
|
List *merge_pathkeys;
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
/* Make a pathkey list with this guy first */
|
|
|
|
|
if (l != list_head(all_pathkeys))
|
|
|
|
|
outerkeys = lcons(front_pathkey,
|
|
|
|
|
list_delete_nth_cell(list_copy(all_pathkeys),
|
|
|
|
|
foreach_current_index(l)));
|
|
|
|
|
else
|
|
|
|
|
outerkeys = all_pathkeys; /* no work at first one... */
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
/* Sort the mergeclauses into the corresponding ordering */
|
Fix planner failures with overlapping mergejoin clauses in an outer join.
Given overlapping or partially redundant join clauses, for example
t1 JOIN t2 ON t1.a = t2.x AND t1.b = t2.x
the planner's EquivalenceClass machinery will ordinarily refactor the
clauses as "t1.a = t1.b AND t1.a = t2.x", so that join processing doesn't
see multiple references to the same EquivalenceClass in a list of join
equality clauses. However, if the join is outer, it's incorrect to derive
a restriction clause on the outer side from the join conditions, so the
clause refactoring does not happen and we end up with overlapping join
conditions. The code that attempted to deal with such cases had several
subtle bugs, which could result in "left and right pathkeys do not match in
mergejoin" or "outer pathkeys do not match mergeclauses" planner errors,
if the selected join plan type was a mergejoin. (It does not appear that
any actually incorrect plan could have been emitted.)
The core of the problem really was failure to recognize that the outer and
inner relations' pathkeys have different relationships to the mergeclause
list. A join's mergeclause list is constructed by reference to the outer
pathkeys, so it will always be ordered the same as the outer pathkeys, but
this cannot be presumed true for the inner pathkeys. If the inner sides of
the mergeclauses contain multiple references to the same EquivalenceClass
({t2.x} in the above example) then a simplistic rendering of the required
inner sort order is like "ORDER BY t2.x, t2.x", but the pathkey machinery
recognizes that the second sort column is redundant and throws it away.
The mergejoin planning code failed to account for that behavior properly.
One error was to try to generate cut-down versions of the mergeclause list
from cut-down versions of the inner pathkeys in the same way as the initial
construction of the mergeclause list from the outer pathkeys was done; this
could lead to choosing a mergeclause list that fails to match the outer
pathkeys. The other problem was that the pathkey cross-checking code in
create_mergejoin_plan treated the inner and outer pathkey lists
identically, whereas actually the expectations for them must be different.
That led to false "pathkeys do not match" failures in some cases, and in
principle could have led to failure to detect bogus plans in other cases,
though there is no indication that such bogus plans could be generated.
Reported by Alexander Kuzmenkov, who also reviewed this patch. This has
been broken for years (back to around 8.3 according to my testing), so
back-patch to all supported branches.
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/5dad9160-4632-0e47-e120-8e2082000c01@postgrespro.ru
8 years ago
|
|
|
cur_mergeclauses =
|
|
|
|
|
find_mergeclauses_for_outer_pathkeys(root,
|
|
|
|
|
outerkeys,
|
|
|
|
|
extra->mergeclause_list);
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
/* Should have used them all... */
|
Code review for foreign/custom join pushdown patch.
Commit e7cb7ee14555cc9c5773e2c102efd6371f6f2005 included some design
decisions that seem pretty questionable to me, and there was quite a lot
of stuff not to like about the documentation and comments. Clean up
as follows:
* Consider foreign joins only between foreign tables on the same server,
rather than between any two foreign tables with the same underlying FDW
handler function. In most if not all cases, the FDW would simply have had
to apply the same-server restriction itself (far more expensively, both for
lack of caching and because it would be repeated for each combination of
input sub-joins), or else risk nasty bugs. Anyone who's really intent on
doing something outside this restriction can always use the
set_join_pathlist_hook.
* Rename fdw_ps_tlist/custom_ps_tlist to fdw_scan_tlist/custom_scan_tlist
to better reflect what they're for, and allow these custom scan tlists
to be used even for base relations.
* Change make_foreignscan() API to include passing the fdw_scan_tlist
value, since the FDW is required to set that. Backwards compatibility
doesn't seem like an adequate reason to expect FDWs to set it in some
ad-hoc extra step, and anyway existing FDWs can just pass NIL.
* Change the API of path-generating subroutines of add_paths_to_joinrel,
and in particular that of GetForeignJoinPaths and set_join_pathlist_hook,
so that various less-used parameters are passed in a struct rather than
as separate parameter-list entries. The objective here is to reduce the
probability that future additions to those parameter lists will result in
source-level API breaks for users of these hooks. It's possible that this
is even a small win for the core code, since most CPU architectures can't
pass more than half a dozen parameters efficiently anyway. I kept root,
joinrel, outerrel, innerrel, and jointype as separate parameters to reduce
code churn in joinpath.c --- in particular, putting jointype into the
struct would have been problematic because of the subroutines' habit of
changing their local copies of that variable.
* Avoid ad-hocery in ExecAssignScanProjectionInfo. It was probably all
right for it to know about IndexOnlyScan, but if the list is to grow
we should refactor the knowledge out to the callers.
* Restore nodeForeignscan.c's previous use of the relcache to avoid
extra GetFdwRoutine lookups for base-relation scans.
* Lots of cleanup of documentation and missed comments. Re-order some
code additions into more logical places.
11 years ago
|
|
|
Assert(list_length(cur_mergeclauses) == list_length(extra->mergeclause_list));
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
/* Build sort pathkeys for the inner side */
|
|
|
|
|
innerkeys = make_inner_pathkeys_for_merge(root,
|
|
|
|
|
cur_mergeclauses,
|
|
|
|
|
outerkeys);
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
/* Build pathkeys representing output sort order */
|
|
|
|
|
merge_pathkeys = build_join_pathkeys(root, joinrel, jointype,
|
|
|
|
|
outerkeys);
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
/*
|
|
|
|
|
* And now we can make the path.
|
|
|
|
|
*
|
|
|
|
|
* Note: it's possible that the cheapest paths will already be sorted
|
|
|
|
|
* properly. try_mergejoin_path will detect that case and suppress an
|
|
|
|
|
* explicit sort step, so we needn't do so here.
|
|
|
|
|
*/
|
|
|
|
|
try_mergejoin_path(root,
|
|
|
|
|
joinrel,
|
|
|
|
|
outer_path,
|
|
|
|
|
inner_path,
|
|
|
|
|
merge_pathkeys,
|
|
|
|
|
cur_mergeclauses,
|
|
|
|
|
outerkeys,
|
Code review for foreign/custom join pushdown patch.
Commit e7cb7ee14555cc9c5773e2c102efd6371f6f2005 included some design
decisions that seem pretty questionable to me, and there was quite a lot
of stuff not to like about the documentation and comments. Clean up
as follows:
* Consider foreign joins only between foreign tables on the same server,
rather than between any two foreign tables with the same underlying FDW
handler function. In most if not all cases, the FDW would simply have had
to apply the same-server restriction itself (far more expensively, both for
lack of caching and because it would be repeated for each combination of
input sub-joins), or else risk nasty bugs. Anyone who's really intent on
doing something outside this restriction can always use the
set_join_pathlist_hook.
* Rename fdw_ps_tlist/custom_ps_tlist to fdw_scan_tlist/custom_scan_tlist
to better reflect what they're for, and allow these custom scan tlists
to be used even for base relations.
* Change make_foreignscan() API to include passing the fdw_scan_tlist
value, since the FDW is required to set that. Backwards compatibility
doesn't seem like an adequate reason to expect FDWs to set it in some
ad-hoc extra step, and anyway existing FDWs can just pass NIL.
* Change the API of path-generating subroutines of add_paths_to_joinrel,
and in particular that of GetForeignJoinPaths and set_join_pathlist_hook,
so that various less-used parameters are passed in a struct rather than
as separate parameter-list entries. The objective here is to reduce the
probability that future additions to those parameter lists will result in
source-level API breaks for users of these hooks. It's possible that this
is even a small win for the core code, since most CPU architectures can't
pass more than half a dozen parameters efficiently anyway. I kept root,
joinrel, outerrel, innerrel, and jointype as separate parameters to reduce
code churn in joinpath.c --- in particular, putting jointype into the
struct would have been problematic because of the subroutines' habit of
changing their local copies of that variable.
* Avoid ad-hocery in ExecAssignScanProjectionInfo. It was probably all
right for it to know about IndexOnlyScan, but if the list is to grow
we should refactor the knowledge out to the callers.
* Restore nodeForeignscan.c's previous use of the relcache to avoid
extra GetFdwRoutine lookups for base-relation scans.
* Lots of cleanup of documentation and missed comments. Re-order some
code additions into more logical places.
11 years ago
|
|
|
innerkeys,
|
|
|
|
|
jointype,
|
|
|
|
|
extra,
|
|
|
|
|
false);
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
/*
|
|
|
|
|
* If we have partial outer and parallel safe inner path then try
|
|
|
|
|
* partial mergejoin path.
|
|
|
|
|
*/
|
|
|
|
|
if (cheapest_partial_outer && cheapest_safe_inner)
|
|
|
|
|
try_partial_mergejoin_path(root,
|
|
|
|
|
joinrel,
|
|
|
|
|
cheapest_partial_outer,
|
|
|
|
|
cheapest_safe_inner,
|
|
|
|
|
merge_pathkeys,
|
|
|
|
|
cur_mergeclauses,
|
|
|
|
|
outerkeys,
|
|
|
|
|
innerkeys,
|
|
|
|
|
jointype,
|
|
|
|
|
extra);
|
|
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
/*
|
|
|
|
|
* generate_mergejoin_paths
|
|
|
|
|
* Creates possible mergejoin paths for input outerpath.
|
|
|
|
|
*
|
|
|
|
|
* We generate mergejoins if mergejoin clauses are available. We have
|
|
|
|
|
* two ways to generate the inner path for a mergejoin: sort the cheapest
|
|
|
|
|
* inner path, or use an inner path that is already suitably ordered for the
|
|
|
|
|
* merge. If we have several mergeclauses, it could be that there is no inner
|
|
|
|
|
* path (or only a very expensive one) for the full list of mergeclauses, but
|
|
|
|
|
* better paths exist if we truncate the mergeclause list (thereby discarding
|
|
|
|
|
* some sort key requirements). So, we consider truncations of the
|
|
|
|
|
* mergeclause list as well as the full list. (Ideally we'd consider all
|
|
|
|
|
* subsets of the mergeclause list, but that seems way too expensive.)
|
|
|
|
|
*/
|
|
|
|
|
static void
|
|
|
|
|
generate_mergejoin_paths(PlannerInfo *root,
|
|
|
|
|
RelOptInfo *joinrel,
|
|
|
|
|
RelOptInfo *innerrel,
|
|
|
|
|
Path *outerpath,
|
|
|
|
|
JoinType jointype,
|
|
|
|
|
JoinPathExtraData *extra,
|
|
|
|
|
bool useallclauses,
|
|
|
|
|
Path *inner_cheapest_total,
|
|
|
|
|
List *merge_pathkeys,
|
|
|
|
|
bool is_partial)
|
|
|
|
|
{
|
|
|
|
|
List *mergeclauses;
|
|
|
|
|
List *innersortkeys;
|
|
|
|
|
List *trialsortkeys;
|
|
|
|
|
Path *cheapest_startup_inner;
|
|
|
|
|
Path *cheapest_total_inner;
|
|
|
|
|
JoinType save_jointype = jointype;
|
|
|
|
|
int num_sortkeys;
|
|
|
|
|
int sortkeycnt;
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
if (jointype == JOIN_UNIQUE_OUTER || jointype == JOIN_UNIQUE_INNER)
|
|
|
|
|
jointype = JOIN_INNER;
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
/* Look for useful mergeclauses (if any) */
|
Fix planner failures with overlapping mergejoin clauses in an outer join.
Given overlapping or partially redundant join clauses, for example
t1 JOIN t2 ON t1.a = t2.x AND t1.b = t2.x
the planner's EquivalenceClass machinery will ordinarily refactor the
clauses as "t1.a = t1.b AND t1.a = t2.x", so that join processing doesn't
see multiple references to the same EquivalenceClass in a list of join
equality clauses. However, if the join is outer, it's incorrect to derive
a restriction clause on the outer side from the join conditions, so the
clause refactoring does not happen and we end up with overlapping join
conditions. The code that attempted to deal with such cases had several
subtle bugs, which could result in "left and right pathkeys do not match in
mergejoin" or "outer pathkeys do not match mergeclauses" planner errors,
if the selected join plan type was a mergejoin. (It does not appear that
any actually incorrect plan could have been emitted.)
The core of the problem really was failure to recognize that the outer and
inner relations' pathkeys have different relationships to the mergeclause
list. A join's mergeclause list is constructed by reference to the outer
pathkeys, so it will always be ordered the same as the outer pathkeys, but
this cannot be presumed true for the inner pathkeys. If the inner sides of
the mergeclauses contain multiple references to the same EquivalenceClass
({t2.x} in the above example) then a simplistic rendering of the required
inner sort order is like "ORDER BY t2.x, t2.x", but the pathkey machinery
recognizes that the second sort column is redundant and throws it away.
The mergejoin planning code failed to account for that behavior properly.
One error was to try to generate cut-down versions of the mergeclause list
from cut-down versions of the inner pathkeys in the same way as the initial
construction of the mergeclause list from the outer pathkeys was done; this
could lead to choosing a mergeclause list that fails to match the outer
pathkeys. The other problem was that the pathkey cross-checking code in
create_mergejoin_plan treated the inner and outer pathkey lists
identically, whereas actually the expectations for them must be different.
That led to false "pathkeys do not match" failures in some cases, and in
principle could have led to failure to detect bogus plans in other cases,
though there is no indication that such bogus plans could be generated.
Reported by Alexander Kuzmenkov, who also reviewed this patch. This has
been broken for years (back to around 8.3 according to my testing), so
back-patch to all supported branches.
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/5dad9160-4632-0e47-e120-8e2082000c01@postgrespro.ru
8 years ago
|
|
|
mergeclauses =
|
|
|
|
|
find_mergeclauses_for_outer_pathkeys(root,
|
|
|
|
|
outerpath->pathkeys,
|
|
|
|
|
extra->mergeclause_list);
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
/*
|
|
|
|
|
* Done with this outer path if no chance for a mergejoin.
|
|
|
|
|
*
|
|
|
|
|
* Special corner case: for "x FULL JOIN y ON true", there will be no join
|
|
|
|
|
* clauses at all. Ordinarily we'd generate a clauseless nestloop path,
|
|
|
|
|
* but since mergejoin is our only join type that supports FULL JOIN
|
|
|
|
|
* without any join clauses, it's necessary to generate a clauseless
|
|
|
|
|
* mergejoin path instead.
|
|
|
|
|
*/
|
|
|
|
|
if (mergeclauses == NIL)
|
|
|
|
|
{
|
|
|
|
|
if (jointype == JOIN_FULL)
|
|
|
|
|
/* okay to try for mergejoin */ ;
|
|
|
|
|
else
|
|
|
|
|
return;
|
|
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
|
if (useallclauses &&
|
|
|
|
|
list_length(mergeclauses) != list_length(extra->mergeclause_list))
|
|
|
|
|
return;
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
/* Compute the required ordering of the inner path */
|
|
|
|
|
innersortkeys = make_inner_pathkeys_for_merge(root,
|
|
|
|
|
mergeclauses,
|
|
|
|
|
outerpath->pathkeys);
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
/*
|
|
|
|
|
* Generate a mergejoin on the basis of sorting the cheapest inner. Since
|
|
|
|
|
* a sort will be needed, only cheapest total cost matters. (But
|
|
|
|
|
* try_mergejoin_path will do the right thing if inner_cheapest_total is
|
|
|
|
|
* already correctly sorted.)
|
|
|
|
|
*/
|
|
|
|
|
try_mergejoin_path(root,
|
|
|
|
|
joinrel,
|
|
|
|
|
outerpath,
|
|
|
|
|
inner_cheapest_total,
|
|
|
|
|
merge_pathkeys,
|
|
|
|
|
mergeclauses,
|
|
|
|
|
NIL,
|
|
|
|
|
innersortkeys,
|
|
|
|
|
jointype,
|
|
|
|
|
extra,
|
|
|
|
|
is_partial);
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
/* Can't do anything else if inner path needs to be unique'd */
|
|
|
|
|
if (save_jointype == JOIN_UNIQUE_INNER)
|
|
|
|
|
return;
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
/*
|
|
|
|
|
* Look for presorted inner paths that satisfy the innersortkey list ---
|
|
|
|
|
* or any truncation thereof, if we are allowed to build a mergejoin using
|
|
|
|
|
* a subset of the merge clauses. Here, we consider both cheap startup
|
|
|
|
|
* cost and cheap total cost.
|
|
|
|
|
*
|
|
|
|
|
* Currently we do not consider parameterized inner paths here. This
|
|
|
|
|
* interacts with decisions elsewhere that also discriminate against
|
|
|
|
|
* mergejoins with parameterized inputs; see comments in
|
|
|
|
|
* src/backend/optimizer/README.
|
|
|
|
|
*
|
|
|
|
|
* As we shorten the sortkey list, we should consider only paths that are
|
|
|
|
|
* strictly cheaper than (in particular, not the same as) any path found
|
|
|
|
|
* in an earlier iteration. Otherwise we'd be intentionally using fewer
|
|
|
|
|
* merge keys than a given path allows (treating the rest as plain
|
|
|
|
|
* joinquals), which is unlikely to be a good idea. Also, eliminating
|
|
|
|
|
* paths here on the basis of compare_path_costs is a lot cheaper than
|
|
|
|
|
* building the mergejoin path only to throw it away.
|
|
|
|
|
*
|
|
|
|
|
* If inner_cheapest_total is well enough sorted to have not required a
|
|
|
|
|
* sort in the path made above, we shouldn't make a duplicate path with
|
|
|
|
|
* it, either. We handle that case with the same logic that handles the
|
|
|
|
|
* previous consideration, by initializing the variables that track
|
|
|
|
|
* cheapest-so-far properly. Note that we do NOT reject
|
|
|
|
|
* inner_cheapest_total if we find it matches some shorter set of
|
|
|
|
|
* pathkeys. That case corresponds to using fewer mergekeys to avoid
|
|
|
|
|
* sorting inner_cheapest_total, whereas we did sort it above, so the
|
|
|
|
|
* plans being considered are different.
|
|
|
|
|
*/
|
|
|
|
|
if (pathkeys_contained_in(innersortkeys,
|
|
|
|
|
inner_cheapest_total->pathkeys))
|
|
|
|
|
{
|
|
|
|
|
/* inner_cheapest_total didn't require a sort */
|
|
|
|
|
cheapest_startup_inner = inner_cheapest_total;
|
|
|
|
|
cheapest_total_inner = inner_cheapest_total;
|
|
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
|
else
|
|
|
|
|
{
|
|
|
|
|
/* it did require a sort, at least for the full set of keys */
|
|
|
|
|
cheapest_startup_inner = NULL;
|
|
|
|
|
cheapest_total_inner = NULL;
|
|
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
|
num_sortkeys = list_length(innersortkeys);
|
|
|
|
|
if (num_sortkeys > 1 && !useallclauses)
|
Phase 2 of pgindent updates.
Change pg_bsd_indent to follow upstream rules for placement of comments
to the right of code, and remove pgindent hack that caused comments
following #endif to not obey the general rule.
Commit e3860ffa4dd0dad0dd9eea4be9cc1412373a8c89 wasn't actually using
the published version of pg_bsd_indent, but a hacked-up version that
tried to minimize the amount of movement of comments to the right of
code. The situation of interest is where such a comment has to be
moved to the right of its default placement at column 33 because there's
code there. BSD indent has always moved right in units of tab stops
in such cases --- but in the previous incarnation, indent was working
in 8-space tab stops, while now it knows we use 4-space tabs. So the
net result is that in about half the cases, such comments are placed
one tab stop left of before. This is better all around: it leaves
more room on the line for comment text, and it means that in such
cases the comment uniformly starts at the next 4-space tab stop after
the code, rather than sometimes one and sometimes two tabs after.
Also, ensure that comments following #endif are indented the same
as comments following other preprocessor commands such as #else.
That inconsistency turns out to have been self-inflicted damage
from a poorly-thought-through post-indent "fixup" in pgindent.
This patch is much less interesting than the first round of indent
changes, but also bulkier, so I thought it best to separate the effects.
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/E1dAmxK-0006EE-1r@gemulon.postgresql.org
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/30527.1495162840@sss.pgh.pa.us
9 years ago
|
|
|
trialsortkeys = list_copy(innersortkeys); /* need modifiable copy */
|
|
|
|
|
else
|
|
|
|
|
trialsortkeys = innersortkeys; /* won't really truncate */
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
for (sortkeycnt = num_sortkeys; sortkeycnt > 0; sortkeycnt--)
|
|
|
|
|
{
|
|
|
|
|
Path *innerpath;
|
|
|
|
|
List *newclauses = NIL;
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
/*
|
|
|
|
|
* Look for an inner path ordered well enough for the first
|
|
|
|
|
* 'sortkeycnt' innersortkeys. NB: trialsortkeys list is modified
|
|
|
|
|
* destructively, which is why we made a copy...
|
|
|
|
|
*/
|
|
|
|
|
trialsortkeys = list_truncate(trialsortkeys, sortkeycnt);
|
|
|
|
|
innerpath = get_cheapest_path_for_pathkeys(innerrel->pathlist,
|
|
|
|
|
trialsortkeys,
|
|
|
|
|
NULL,
|
|
|
|
|
TOTAL_COST,
|
|
|
|
|
is_partial);
|
|
|
|
|
if (innerpath != NULL &&
|
|
|
|
|
(cheapest_total_inner == NULL ||
|
|
|
|
|
compare_path_costs(innerpath, cheapest_total_inner,
|
|
|
|
|
TOTAL_COST) < 0))
|
|
|
|
|
{
|
|
|
|
|
/* Found a cheap (or even-cheaper) sorted path */
|
|
|
|
|
/* Select the right mergeclauses, if we didn't already */
|
|
|
|
|
if (sortkeycnt < num_sortkeys)
|
|
|
|
|
{
|
|
|
|
|
newclauses =
|
Fix planner failures with overlapping mergejoin clauses in an outer join.
Given overlapping or partially redundant join clauses, for example
t1 JOIN t2 ON t1.a = t2.x AND t1.b = t2.x
the planner's EquivalenceClass machinery will ordinarily refactor the
clauses as "t1.a = t1.b AND t1.a = t2.x", so that join processing doesn't
see multiple references to the same EquivalenceClass in a list of join
equality clauses. However, if the join is outer, it's incorrect to derive
a restriction clause on the outer side from the join conditions, so the
clause refactoring does not happen and we end up with overlapping join
conditions. The code that attempted to deal with such cases had several
subtle bugs, which could result in "left and right pathkeys do not match in
mergejoin" or "outer pathkeys do not match mergeclauses" planner errors,
if the selected join plan type was a mergejoin. (It does not appear that
any actually incorrect plan could have been emitted.)
The core of the problem really was failure to recognize that the outer and
inner relations' pathkeys have different relationships to the mergeclause
list. A join's mergeclause list is constructed by reference to the outer
pathkeys, so it will always be ordered the same as the outer pathkeys, but
this cannot be presumed true for the inner pathkeys. If the inner sides of
the mergeclauses contain multiple references to the same EquivalenceClass
({t2.x} in the above example) then a simplistic rendering of the required
inner sort order is like "ORDER BY t2.x, t2.x", but the pathkey machinery
recognizes that the second sort column is redundant and throws it away.
The mergejoin planning code failed to account for that behavior properly.
One error was to try to generate cut-down versions of the mergeclause list
from cut-down versions of the inner pathkeys in the same way as the initial
construction of the mergeclause list from the outer pathkeys was done; this
could lead to choosing a mergeclause list that fails to match the outer
pathkeys. The other problem was that the pathkey cross-checking code in
create_mergejoin_plan treated the inner and outer pathkey lists
identically, whereas actually the expectations for them must be different.
That led to false "pathkeys do not match" failures in some cases, and in
principle could have led to failure to detect bogus plans in other cases,
though there is no indication that such bogus plans could be generated.
Reported by Alexander Kuzmenkov, who also reviewed this patch. This has
been broken for years (back to around 8.3 according to my testing), so
back-patch to all supported branches.
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/5dad9160-4632-0e47-e120-8e2082000c01@postgrespro.ru
8 years ago
|
|
|
trim_mergeclauses_for_inner_pathkeys(root,
|
|
|
|
|
mergeclauses,
|
|
|
|
|
trialsortkeys);
|
|
|
|
|
Assert(newclauses != NIL);
|
|
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
|
else
|
|
|
|
|
newclauses = mergeclauses;
|
|
|
|
|
try_mergejoin_path(root,
|
|
|
|
|
joinrel,
|
|
|
|
|
outerpath,
|
|
|
|
|
innerpath,
|
|
|
|
|
merge_pathkeys,
|
|
|
|
|
newclauses,
|
|
|
|
|
NIL,
|
|
|
|
|
NIL,
|
|
|
|
|
jointype,
|
|
|
|
|
extra,
|
|
|
|
|
is_partial);
|
|
|
|
|
cheapest_total_inner = innerpath;
|
|
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
|
/* Same on the basis of cheapest startup cost ... */
|
|
|
|
|
innerpath = get_cheapest_path_for_pathkeys(innerrel->pathlist,
|
|
|
|
|
trialsortkeys,
|
|
|
|
|
NULL,
|
|
|
|
|
STARTUP_COST,
|
|
|
|
|
is_partial);
|
|
|
|
|
if (innerpath != NULL &&
|
|
|
|
|
(cheapest_startup_inner == NULL ||
|
|
|
|
|
compare_path_costs(innerpath, cheapest_startup_inner,
|
|
|
|
|
STARTUP_COST) < 0))
|
|
|
|
|
{
|
|
|
|
|
/* Found a cheap (or even-cheaper) sorted path */
|
|
|
|
|
if (innerpath != cheapest_total_inner)
|
|
|
|
|
{
|
|
|
|
|
/*
|
|
|
|
|
* Avoid rebuilding clause list if we already made one; saves
|
|
|
|
|
* memory in big join trees...
|
|
|
|
|
*/
|
|
|
|
|
if (newclauses == NIL)
|
|
|
|
|
{
|
|
|
|
|
if (sortkeycnt < num_sortkeys)
|
|
|
|
|
{
|
|
|
|
|
newclauses =
|
Fix planner failures with overlapping mergejoin clauses in an outer join.
Given overlapping or partially redundant join clauses, for example
t1 JOIN t2 ON t1.a = t2.x AND t1.b = t2.x
the planner's EquivalenceClass machinery will ordinarily refactor the
clauses as "t1.a = t1.b AND t1.a = t2.x", so that join processing doesn't
see multiple references to the same EquivalenceClass in a list of join
equality clauses. However, if the join is outer, it's incorrect to derive
a restriction clause on the outer side from the join conditions, so the
clause refactoring does not happen and we end up with overlapping join
conditions. The code that attempted to deal with such cases had several
subtle bugs, which could result in "left and right pathkeys do not match in
mergejoin" or "outer pathkeys do not match mergeclauses" planner errors,
if the selected join plan type was a mergejoin. (It does not appear that
any actually incorrect plan could have been emitted.)
The core of the problem really was failure to recognize that the outer and
inner relations' pathkeys have different relationships to the mergeclause
list. A join's mergeclause list is constructed by reference to the outer
pathkeys, so it will always be ordered the same as the outer pathkeys, but
this cannot be presumed true for the inner pathkeys. If the inner sides of
the mergeclauses contain multiple references to the same EquivalenceClass
({t2.x} in the above example) then a simplistic rendering of the required
inner sort order is like "ORDER BY t2.x, t2.x", but the pathkey machinery
recognizes that the second sort column is redundant and throws it away.
The mergejoin planning code failed to account for that behavior properly.
One error was to try to generate cut-down versions of the mergeclause list
from cut-down versions of the inner pathkeys in the same way as the initial
construction of the mergeclause list from the outer pathkeys was done; this
could lead to choosing a mergeclause list that fails to match the outer
pathkeys. The other problem was that the pathkey cross-checking code in
create_mergejoin_plan treated the inner and outer pathkey lists
identically, whereas actually the expectations for them must be different.
That led to false "pathkeys do not match" failures in some cases, and in
principle could have led to failure to detect bogus plans in other cases,
though there is no indication that such bogus plans could be generated.
Reported by Alexander Kuzmenkov, who also reviewed this patch. This has
been broken for years (back to around 8.3 according to my testing), so
back-patch to all supported branches.
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/5dad9160-4632-0e47-e120-8e2082000c01@postgrespro.ru
8 years ago
|
|
|
trim_mergeclauses_for_inner_pathkeys(root,
|
|
|
|
|
mergeclauses,
|
|
|
|
|
trialsortkeys);
|
|
|
|
|
Assert(newclauses != NIL);
|
|
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
|
else
|
|
|
|
|
newclauses = mergeclauses;
|
|
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
|
try_mergejoin_path(root,
|
|
|
|
|
joinrel,
|
|
|
|
|
outerpath,
|
|
|
|
|
innerpath,
|
|
|
|
|
merge_pathkeys,
|
|
|
|
|
newclauses,
|
|
|
|
|
NIL,
|
|
|
|
|
NIL,
|
|
|
|
|
jointype,
|
|
|
|
|
extra,
|
|
|
|
|
is_partial);
|
|
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
|
cheapest_startup_inner = innerpath;
|
|
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
/*
|
|
|
|
|
* Don't consider truncated sortkeys if we need all clauses.
|
|
|
|
|
*/
|
|
|
|
|
if (useallclauses)
|
|
|
|
|
break;
|
|
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
/*
|
|
|
|
|
* match_unsorted_outer
|
|
|
|
|
* Creates possible join paths for processing a single join relation
|
|
|
|
|
* 'joinrel' by employing either iterative substitution or
|
|
|
|
|
* mergejoining on each of its possible outer paths (considering
|
|
|
|
|
* only outer paths that are already ordered well enough for merging).
|
|
|
|
|
*
|
|
|
|
|
* We always generate a nestloop path for each available outer path.
|
|
|
|
|
* In fact we may generate as many as five: one on the cheapest-total-cost
|
|
|
|
|
* inner path, one on the same with materialization, one on the
|
|
|
|
|
* cheapest-startup-cost inner path (if different), one on the
|
|
|
|
|
* cheapest-total inner-indexscan path (if any), and one on the
|
|
|
|
|
* cheapest-startup inner-indexscan path (if different).
|
|
|
|
|
*
|
|
|
|
|
* We also consider mergejoins if mergejoin clauses are available. See
|
|
|
|
|
* detailed comments in generate_mergejoin_paths.
|
|
|
|
|
*
|
|
|
|
|
* 'joinrel' is the join relation
|
|
|
|
|
* 'outerrel' is the outer join relation
|
|
|
|
|
* 'innerrel' is the inner join relation
|
|
|
|
|
* 'jointype' is the type of join to do
|
Code review for foreign/custom join pushdown patch.
Commit e7cb7ee14555cc9c5773e2c102efd6371f6f2005 included some design
decisions that seem pretty questionable to me, and there was quite a lot
of stuff not to like about the documentation and comments. Clean up
as follows:
* Consider foreign joins only between foreign tables on the same server,
rather than between any two foreign tables with the same underlying FDW
handler function. In most if not all cases, the FDW would simply have had
to apply the same-server restriction itself (far more expensively, both for
lack of caching and because it would be repeated for each combination of
input sub-joins), or else risk nasty bugs. Anyone who's really intent on
doing something outside this restriction can always use the
set_join_pathlist_hook.
* Rename fdw_ps_tlist/custom_ps_tlist to fdw_scan_tlist/custom_scan_tlist
to better reflect what they're for, and allow these custom scan tlists
to be used even for base relations.
* Change make_foreignscan() API to include passing the fdw_scan_tlist
value, since the FDW is required to set that. Backwards compatibility
doesn't seem like an adequate reason to expect FDWs to set it in some
ad-hoc extra step, and anyway existing FDWs can just pass NIL.
* Change the API of path-generating subroutines of add_paths_to_joinrel,
and in particular that of GetForeignJoinPaths and set_join_pathlist_hook,
so that various less-used parameters are passed in a struct rather than
as separate parameter-list entries. The objective here is to reduce the
probability that future additions to those parameter lists will result in
source-level API breaks for users of these hooks. It's possible that this
is even a small win for the core code, since most CPU architectures can't
pass more than half a dozen parameters efficiently anyway. I kept root,
joinrel, outerrel, innerrel, and jointype as separate parameters to reduce
code churn in joinpath.c --- in particular, putting jointype into the
struct would have been problematic because of the subroutines' habit of
changing their local copies of that variable.
* Avoid ad-hocery in ExecAssignScanProjectionInfo. It was probably all
right for it to know about IndexOnlyScan, but if the list is to grow
we should refactor the knowledge out to the callers.
* Restore nodeForeignscan.c's previous use of the relcache to avoid
extra GetFdwRoutine lookups for base-relation scans.
* Lots of cleanup of documentation and missed comments. Re-order some
code additions into more logical places.
11 years ago
|
|
|
* 'extra' contains additional input values
|
|
|
|
|
*/
|
|
|
|
|
static void
|
|
|
|
|
match_unsorted_outer(PlannerInfo *root,
|
|
|
|
|
RelOptInfo *joinrel,
|
|
|
|
|
RelOptInfo *outerrel,
|
|
|
|
|
RelOptInfo *innerrel,
|
|
|
|
|
JoinType jointype,
|
Code review for foreign/custom join pushdown patch.
Commit e7cb7ee14555cc9c5773e2c102efd6371f6f2005 included some design
decisions that seem pretty questionable to me, and there was quite a lot
of stuff not to like about the documentation and comments. Clean up
as follows:
* Consider foreign joins only between foreign tables on the same server,
rather than between any two foreign tables with the same underlying FDW
handler function. In most if not all cases, the FDW would simply have had
to apply the same-server restriction itself (far more expensively, both for
lack of caching and because it would be repeated for each combination of
input sub-joins), or else risk nasty bugs. Anyone who's really intent on
doing something outside this restriction can always use the
set_join_pathlist_hook.
* Rename fdw_ps_tlist/custom_ps_tlist to fdw_scan_tlist/custom_scan_tlist
to better reflect what they're for, and allow these custom scan tlists
to be used even for base relations.
* Change make_foreignscan() API to include passing the fdw_scan_tlist
value, since the FDW is required to set that. Backwards compatibility
doesn't seem like an adequate reason to expect FDWs to set it in some
ad-hoc extra step, and anyway existing FDWs can just pass NIL.
* Change the API of path-generating subroutines of add_paths_to_joinrel,
and in particular that of GetForeignJoinPaths and set_join_pathlist_hook,
so that various less-used parameters are passed in a struct rather than
as separate parameter-list entries. The objective here is to reduce the
probability that future additions to those parameter lists will result in
source-level API breaks for users of these hooks. It's possible that this
is even a small win for the core code, since most CPU architectures can't
pass more than half a dozen parameters efficiently anyway. I kept root,
joinrel, outerrel, innerrel, and jointype as separate parameters to reduce
code churn in joinpath.c --- in particular, putting jointype into the
struct would have been problematic because of the subroutines' habit of
changing their local copies of that variable.
* Avoid ad-hocery in ExecAssignScanProjectionInfo. It was probably all
right for it to know about IndexOnlyScan, but if the list is to grow
we should refactor the knowledge out to the callers.
* Restore nodeForeignscan.c's previous use of the relcache to avoid
extra GetFdwRoutine lookups for base-relation scans.
* Lots of cleanup of documentation and missed comments. Re-order some
code additions into more logical places.
11 years ago
|
|
|
JoinPathExtraData *extra)
|
|
|
|
|
{
|
|
|
|
|
JoinType save_jointype = jointype;
|
|
|
|
|
bool nestjoinOK;
|
|
|
|
|
bool useallclauses;
|
|
|
|
|
Path *inner_cheapest_total = innerrel->cheapest_total_path;
|
|
|
|
|
Path *matpath = NULL;
|
|
|
|
|
ListCell *lc1;
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
/*
|
|
|
|
|
* Nestloop only supports inner, left, semi, and anti joins. Also, if we
|
|
|
|
|
* are doing a right, right-anti or full mergejoin, we must use *all* the
|
|
|
|
|
* mergeclauses as join clauses, else we will not have a valid plan.
|
|
|
|
|
* (Although these two flags are currently inverses, keep them separate
|
|
|
|
|
* for clarity and possible future changes.)
|
|
|
|
|
*/
|
|
|
|
|
switch (jointype)
|
|
|
|
|
{
|
|
|
|
|
case JOIN_INNER:
|
|
|
|
|
case JOIN_LEFT:
|
|
|
|
|
case JOIN_SEMI:
|
|
|
|
|
case JOIN_ANTI:
|
|
|
|
|
nestjoinOK = true;
|
|
|
|
|
useallclauses = false;
|
|
|
|
|
break;
|
|
|
|
|
case JOIN_RIGHT:
|
|
|
|
|
case JOIN_RIGHT_ANTI:
|
|
|
|
|
case JOIN_FULL:
|
|
|
|
|
nestjoinOK = false;
|
|
|
|
|
useallclauses = true;
|
|
|
|
|
break;
|
|
|
|
|
case JOIN_UNIQUE_OUTER:
|
|
|
|
|
case JOIN_UNIQUE_INNER:
|
|
|
|
|
jointype = JOIN_INNER;
|
|
|
|
|
nestjoinOK = true;
|
|
|
|
|
useallclauses = false;
|
|
|
|
|
break;
|
|
|
|
|
default:
|
|
|
|
|
elog(ERROR, "unrecognized join type: %d",
|
|
|
|
|
(int) jointype);
|
|
|
|
|
nestjoinOK = false; /* keep compiler quiet */
|
|
|
|
|
useallclauses = false;
|
|
|
|
|
break;
|
|
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
|
|
Adjust definition of cheapest_total_path to work better with LATERAL.
In the initial cut at LATERAL, I kept the rule that cheapest_total_path
was always unparameterized, which meant it had to be NULL if the relation
has no unparameterized paths. It turns out to work much more nicely if
we always have *some* path nominated as cheapest-total for each relation.
In particular, let's still say it's the cheapest unparameterized path if
there is one; if not, take the cheapest-total-cost path among those of
the minimum available parameterization. (The first rule is actually
a special case of the second.)
This allows reversion of some temporary lobotomizations I'd put in place.
In particular, the planner can now consider hash and merge joins for
joins below a parameter-supplying nestloop, even if there aren't any
unparameterized paths available. This should bring planning of
LATERAL-containing queries to the same level as queries not using that
feature.
Along the way, simplify management of parameterized paths in add_path()
and friends. In the original coding for parameterized paths in 9.2,
I tried to minimize the logic changes in add_path(), so it just treated
parameterization as yet another dimension of comparison for paths.
We later made it ignore pathkeys (sort ordering) of parameterized paths,
on the grounds that ordering isn't a useful property for the path on the
inside of a nestloop, so we might as well get rid of useless parameterized
paths as quickly as possible. But we didn't take that reasoning as far as
we should have. Startup cost isn't a useful property inside a nestloop
either, so add_path() ought to discount startup cost of parameterized paths
as well. Having done that, the secondary sorting I'd implemented (in
add_parameterized_path) is no longer needed --- any parameterized path that
survives add_path() at all is worth considering at higher levels. So this
should be a bit faster as well as simpler.
14 years ago
|
|
|
/*
|
|
|
|
|
* If inner_cheapest_total is parameterized by the outer rel, ignore it;
|
|
|
|
|
* we will consider it below as a member of cheapest_parameterized_paths,
|
|
|
|
|
* but the other possibilities considered in this routine aren't usable.
|
|
|
|
|
*/
|
|
|
|
|
if (PATH_PARAM_BY_REL(inner_cheapest_total, outerrel))
|
|
|
|
|
inner_cheapest_total = NULL;
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
/*
|
|
|
|
|
* If we need to unique-ify the inner path, we will consider only the
|
|
|
|
|
* cheapest-total inner.
|
|
|
|
|
*/
|
|
|
|
|
if (save_jointype == JOIN_UNIQUE_INNER)
|
|
|
|
|
{
|
Adjust definition of cheapest_total_path to work better with LATERAL.
In the initial cut at LATERAL, I kept the rule that cheapest_total_path
was always unparameterized, which meant it had to be NULL if the relation
has no unparameterized paths. It turns out to work much more nicely if
we always have *some* path nominated as cheapest-total for each relation.
In particular, let's still say it's the cheapest unparameterized path if
there is one; if not, take the cheapest-total-cost path among those of
the minimum available parameterization. (The first rule is actually
a special case of the second.)
This allows reversion of some temporary lobotomizations I'd put in place.
In particular, the planner can now consider hash and merge joins for
joins below a parameter-supplying nestloop, even if there aren't any
unparameterized paths available. This should bring planning of
LATERAL-containing queries to the same level as queries not using that
feature.
Along the way, simplify management of parameterized paths in add_path()
and friends. In the original coding for parameterized paths in 9.2,
I tried to minimize the logic changes in add_path(), so it just treated
parameterization as yet another dimension of comparison for paths.
We later made it ignore pathkeys (sort ordering) of parameterized paths,
on the grounds that ordering isn't a useful property for the path on the
inside of a nestloop, so we might as well get rid of useless parameterized
paths as quickly as possible. But we didn't take that reasoning as far as
we should have. Startup cost isn't a useful property inside a nestloop
either, so add_path() ought to discount startup cost of parameterized paths
as well. Having done that, the secondary sorting I'd implemented (in
add_parameterized_path) is no longer needed --- any parameterized path that
survives add_path() at all is worth considering at higher levels. So this
should be a bit faster as well as simpler.
14 years ago
|
|
|
/* No way to do this with an inner path parameterized by outer rel */
|
|
|
|
|
if (inner_cheapest_total == NULL)
|
|
|
|
|
return;
|
|
|
|
|
inner_cheapest_total = (Path *)
|
Code review for foreign/custom join pushdown patch.
Commit e7cb7ee14555cc9c5773e2c102efd6371f6f2005 included some design
decisions that seem pretty questionable to me, and there was quite a lot
of stuff not to like about the documentation and comments. Clean up
as follows:
* Consider foreign joins only between foreign tables on the same server,
rather than between any two foreign tables with the same underlying FDW
handler function. In most if not all cases, the FDW would simply have had
to apply the same-server restriction itself (far more expensively, both for
lack of caching and because it would be repeated for each combination of
input sub-joins), or else risk nasty bugs. Anyone who's really intent on
doing something outside this restriction can always use the
set_join_pathlist_hook.
* Rename fdw_ps_tlist/custom_ps_tlist to fdw_scan_tlist/custom_scan_tlist
to better reflect what they're for, and allow these custom scan tlists
to be used even for base relations.
* Change make_foreignscan() API to include passing the fdw_scan_tlist
value, since the FDW is required to set that. Backwards compatibility
doesn't seem like an adequate reason to expect FDWs to set it in some
ad-hoc extra step, and anyway existing FDWs can just pass NIL.
* Change the API of path-generating subroutines of add_paths_to_joinrel,
and in particular that of GetForeignJoinPaths and set_join_pathlist_hook,
so that various less-used parameters are passed in a struct rather than
as separate parameter-list entries. The objective here is to reduce the
probability that future additions to those parameter lists will result in
source-level API breaks for users of these hooks. It's possible that this
is even a small win for the core code, since most CPU architectures can't
pass more than half a dozen parameters efficiently anyway. I kept root,
joinrel, outerrel, innerrel, and jointype as separate parameters to reduce
code churn in joinpath.c --- in particular, putting jointype into the
struct would have been problematic because of the subroutines' habit of
changing their local copies of that variable.
* Avoid ad-hocery in ExecAssignScanProjectionInfo. It was probably all
right for it to know about IndexOnlyScan, but if the list is to grow
we should refactor the knowledge out to the callers.
* Restore nodeForeignscan.c's previous use of the relcache to avoid
extra GetFdwRoutine lookups for base-relation scans.
* Lots of cleanup of documentation and missed comments. Re-order some
code additions into more logical places.
11 years ago
|
|
|
create_unique_path(root, innerrel, inner_cheapest_total, extra->sjinfo);
|
|
|
|
|
Assert(inner_cheapest_total);
|
|
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
|
else if (nestjoinOK)
|
|
|
|
|
{
|
|
|
|
|
/*
|
|
|
|
|
* Consider materializing the cheapest inner path, unless
|
|
|
|
|
* enable_material is off or the path in question materializes its
|
|
|
|
|
* output anyway.
|
|
|
|
|
*/
|
|
|
|
|
if (enable_material && inner_cheapest_total != NULL &&
|
|
|
|
|
!ExecMaterializesOutput(inner_cheapest_total->pathtype))
|
|
|
|
|
matpath = (Path *)
|
|
|
|
|
create_material_path(innerrel, inner_cheapest_total);
|
|
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
foreach(lc1, outerrel->pathlist)
|
|
|
|
|
{
|
|
|
|
|
Path *outerpath = (Path *) lfirst(lc1);
|
|
|
|
|
List *merge_pathkeys;
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
/*
|
|
|
|
|
* We cannot use an outer path that is parameterized by the inner rel.
|
|
|
|
|
*/
|
Adjust definition of cheapest_total_path to work better with LATERAL.
In the initial cut at LATERAL, I kept the rule that cheapest_total_path
was always unparameterized, which meant it had to be NULL if the relation
has no unparameterized paths. It turns out to work much more nicely if
we always have *some* path nominated as cheapest-total for each relation.
In particular, let's still say it's the cheapest unparameterized path if
there is one; if not, take the cheapest-total-cost path among those of
the minimum available parameterization. (The first rule is actually
a special case of the second.)
This allows reversion of some temporary lobotomizations I'd put in place.
In particular, the planner can now consider hash and merge joins for
joins below a parameter-supplying nestloop, even if there aren't any
unparameterized paths available. This should bring planning of
LATERAL-containing queries to the same level as queries not using that
feature.
Along the way, simplify management of parameterized paths in add_path()
and friends. In the original coding for parameterized paths in 9.2,
I tried to minimize the logic changes in add_path(), so it just treated
parameterization as yet another dimension of comparison for paths.
We later made it ignore pathkeys (sort ordering) of parameterized paths,
on the grounds that ordering isn't a useful property for the path on the
inside of a nestloop, so we might as well get rid of useless parameterized
paths as quickly as possible. But we didn't take that reasoning as far as
we should have. Startup cost isn't a useful property inside a nestloop
either, so add_path() ought to discount startup cost of parameterized paths
as well. Having done that, the secondary sorting I'd implemented (in
add_parameterized_path) is no longer needed --- any parameterized path that
survives add_path() at all is worth considering at higher levels. So this
should be a bit faster as well as simpler.
14 years ago
|
|
|
if (PATH_PARAM_BY_REL(outerpath, innerrel))
|
|
|
|
|
continue;
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
/*
|
|
|
|
|
* If we need to unique-ify the outer path, it's pointless to consider
|
|
|
|
|
* any but the cheapest outer. (XXX we don't consider parameterized
|
|
|
|
|
* outers, nor inners, for unique-ified cases. Should we?)
|
|
|
|
|
*/
|
|
|
|
|
if (save_jointype == JOIN_UNIQUE_OUTER)
|
|
|
|
|
{
|
|
|
|
|
if (outerpath != outerrel->cheapest_total_path)
|
|
|
|
|
continue;
|
|
|
|
|
outerpath = (Path *) create_unique_path(root, outerrel,
|
Code review for foreign/custom join pushdown patch.
Commit e7cb7ee14555cc9c5773e2c102efd6371f6f2005 included some design
decisions that seem pretty questionable to me, and there was quite a lot
of stuff not to like about the documentation and comments. Clean up
as follows:
* Consider foreign joins only between foreign tables on the same server,
rather than between any two foreign tables with the same underlying FDW
handler function. In most if not all cases, the FDW would simply have had
to apply the same-server restriction itself (far more expensively, both for
lack of caching and because it would be repeated for each combination of
input sub-joins), or else risk nasty bugs. Anyone who's really intent on
doing something outside this restriction can always use the
set_join_pathlist_hook.
* Rename fdw_ps_tlist/custom_ps_tlist to fdw_scan_tlist/custom_scan_tlist
to better reflect what they're for, and allow these custom scan tlists
to be used even for base relations.
* Change make_foreignscan() API to include passing the fdw_scan_tlist
value, since the FDW is required to set that. Backwards compatibility
doesn't seem like an adequate reason to expect FDWs to set it in some
ad-hoc extra step, and anyway existing FDWs can just pass NIL.
* Change the API of path-generating subroutines of add_paths_to_joinrel,
and in particular that of GetForeignJoinPaths and set_join_pathlist_hook,
so that various less-used parameters are passed in a struct rather than
as separate parameter-list entries. The objective here is to reduce the
probability that future additions to those parameter lists will result in
source-level API breaks for users of these hooks. It's possible that this
is even a small win for the core code, since most CPU architectures can't
pass more than half a dozen parameters efficiently anyway. I kept root,
joinrel, outerrel, innerrel, and jointype as separate parameters to reduce
code churn in joinpath.c --- in particular, putting jointype into the
struct would have been problematic because of the subroutines' habit of
changing their local copies of that variable.
* Avoid ad-hocery in ExecAssignScanProjectionInfo. It was probably all
right for it to know about IndexOnlyScan, but if the list is to grow
we should refactor the knowledge out to the callers.
* Restore nodeForeignscan.c's previous use of the relcache to avoid
extra GetFdwRoutine lookups for base-relation scans.
* Lots of cleanup of documentation and missed comments. Re-order some
code additions into more logical places.
11 years ago
|
|
|
outerpath, extra->sjinfo);
|
|
|
|
|
Assert(outerpath);
|
|
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
/*
|
|
|
|
|
* The result will have this sort order (even if it is implemented as
|
|
|
|
|
* a nestloop, and even if some of the mergeclauses are implemented by
|
|
|
|
|
* qpquals rather than as true mergeclauses):
|
|
|
|
|
*/
|
|
|
|
|
merge_pathkeys = build_join_pathkeys(root, joinrel, jointype,
|
|
|
|
|
outerpath->pathkeys);
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
if (save_jointype == JOIN_UNIQUE_INNER)
|
|
|
|
|
{
|
|
|
|
|
/*
|
|
|
|
|
* Consider nestloop join, but only with the unique-ified cheapest
|
|
|
|
|
* inner path
|
|
|
|
|
*/
|
|
|
|
|
try_nestloop_path(root,
|
|
|
|
|
joinrel,
|
|
|
|
|
outerpath,
|
|
|
|
|
inner_cheapest_total,
|
Code review for foreign/custom join pushdown patch.
Commit e7cb7ee14555cc9c5773e2c102efd6371f6f2005 included some design
decisions that seem pretty questionable to me, and there was quite a lot
of stuff not to like about the documentation and comments. Clean up
as follows:
* Consider foreign joins only between foreign tables on the same server,
rather than between any two foreign tables with the same underlying FDW
handler function. In most if not all cases, the FDW would simply have had
to apply the same-server restriction itself (far more expensively, both for
lack of caching and because it would be repeated for each combination of
input sub-joins), or else risk nasty bugs. Anyone who's really intent on
doing something outside this restriction can always use the
set_join_pathlist_hook.
* Rename fdw_ps_tlist/custom_ps_tlist to fdw_scan_tlist/custom_scan_tlist
to better reflect what they're for, and allow these custom scan tlists
to be used even for base relations.
* Change make_foreignscan() API to include passing the fdw_scan_tlist
value, since the FDW is required to set that. Backwards compatibility
doesn't seem like an adequate reason to expect FDWs to set it in some
ad-hoc extra step, and anyway existing FDWs can just pass NIL.
* Change the API of path-generating subroutines of add_paths_to_joinrel,
and in particular that of GetForeignJoinPaths and set_join_pathlist_hook,
so that various less-used parameters are passed in a struct rather than
as separate parameter-list entries. The objective here is to reduce the
probability that future additions to those parameter lists will result in
source-level API breaks for users of these hooks. It's possible that this
is even a small win for the core code, since most CPU architectures can't
pass more than half a dozen parameters efficiently anyway. I kept root,
joinrel, outerrel, innerrel, and jointype as separate parameters to reduce
code churn in joinpath.c --- in particular, putting jointype into the
struct would have been problematic because of the subroutines' habit of
changing their local copies of that variable.
* Avoid ad-hocery in ExecAssignScanProjectionInfo. It was probably all
right for it to know about IndexOnlyScan, but if the list is to grow
we should refactor the knowledge out to the callers.
* Restore nodeForeignscan.c's previous use of the relcache to avoid
extra GetFdwRoutine lookups for base-relation scans.
* Lots of cleanup of documentation and missed comments. Re-order some
code additions into more logical places.
11 years ago
|
|
|
merge_pathkeys,
|
|
|
|
|
jointype,
|
|
|
|
|
extra);
|
|
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
|
else if (nestjoinOK)
|
|
|
|
|
{
|
|
|
|
|
/*
|
|
|
|
|
* Consider nestloop joins using this outer path and various
|
|
|
|
|
* available paths for the inner relation. We consider the
|
|
|
|
|
* cheapest-total paths for each available parameterization of the
|
|
|
|
|
* inner relation, including the unparameterized case.
|
|
|
|
|
*/
|
|
|
|
|
ListCell *lc2;
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
foreach(lc2, innerrel->cheapest_parameterized_paths)
|
|
|
|
|
{
|
|
|
|
|
Path *innerpath = (Path *) lfirst(lc2);
|
|
|
|
|
Path *mpath;
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
try_nestloop_path(root,
|
|
|
|
|
joinrel,
|
|
|
|
|
outerpath,
|
|
|
|
|
innerpath,
|
Code review for foreign/custom join pushdown patch.
Commit e7cb7ee14555cc9c5773e2c102efd6371f6f2005 included some design
decisions that seem pretty questionable to me, and there was quite a lot
of stuff not to like about the documentation and comments. Clean up
as follows:
* Consider foreign joins only between foreign tables on the same server,
rather than between any two foreign tables with the same underlying FDW
handler function. In most if not all cases, the FDW would simply have had
to apply the same-server restriction itself (far more expensively, both for
lack of caching and because it would be repeated for each combination of
input sub-joins), or else risk nasty bugs. Anyone who's really intent on
doing something outside this restriction can always use the
set_join_pathlist_hook.
* Rename fdw_ps_tlist/custom_ps_tlist to fdw_scan_tlist/custom_scan_tlist
to better reflect what they're for, and allow these custom scan tlists
to be used even for base relations.
* Change make_foreignscan() API to include passing the fdw_scan_tlist
value, since the FDW is required to set that. Backwards compatibility
doesn't seem like an adequate reason to expect FDWs to set it in some
ad-hoc extra step, and anyway existing FDWs can just pass NIL.
* Change the API of path-generating subroutines of add_paths_to_joinrel,
and in particular that of GetForeignJoinPaths and set_join_pathlist_hook,
so that various less-used parameters are passed in a struct rather than
as separate parameter-list entries. The objective here is to reduce the
probability that future additions to those parameter lists will result in
source-level API breaks for users of these hooks. It's possible that this
is even a small win for the core code, since most CPU architectures can't
pass more than half a dozen parameters efficiently anyway. I kept root,
joinrel, outerrel, innerrel, and jointype as separate parameters to reduce
code churn in joinpath.c --- in particular, putting jointype into the
struct would have been problematic because of the subroutines' habit of
changing their local copies of that variable.
* Avoid ad-hocery in ExecAssignScanProjectionInfo. It was probably all
right for it to know about IndexOnlyScan, but if the list is to grow
we should refactor the knowledge out to the callers.
* Restore nodeForeignscan.c's previous use of the relcache to avoid
extra GetFdwRoutine lookups for base-relation scans.
* Lots of cleanup of documentation and missed comments. Re-order some
code additions into more logical places.
11 years ago
|
|
|
merge_pathkeys,
|
|
|
|
|
jointype,
|
|
|
|
|
extra);
|
Add Result Cache executor node (take 2)
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
5 years ago
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
/*
|
|
|
|
|
* Try generating a memoize path and see if that makes the
|
|
|
|
|
* nested loop any cheaper.
|
Add Result Cache executor node (take 2)
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
5 years ago
|
|
|
*/
|
|
|
|
|
mpath = get_memoize_path(root, innerrel, outerrel,
|
|
|
|
|
innerpath, outerpath, jointype,
|
|
|
|
|
extra);
|
|
|
|
|
if (mpath != NULL)
|
Add Result Cache executor node (take 2)
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
5 years ago
|
|
|
try_nestloop_path(root,
|
|
|
|
|
joinrel,
|
|
|
|
|
outerpath,
|
|
|
|
|
mpath,
|
Add Result Cache executor node (take 2)
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
5 years ago
|
|
|
merge_pathkeys,
|
|
|
|
|
jointype,
|
|
|
|
|
extra);
|
|
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
/* Also consider materialized form of the cheapest inner path */
|
|
|
|
|
if (matpath != NULL)
|
|
|
|
|
try_nestloop_path(root,
|
|
|
|
|
joinrel,
|
|
|
|
|
outerpath,
|
|
|
|
|
matpath,
|
Code review for foreign/custom join pushdown patch.
Commit e7cb7ee14555cc9c5773e2c102efd6371f6f2005 included some design
decisions that seem pretty questionable to me, and there was quite a lot
of stuff not to like about the documentation and comments. Clean up
as follows:
* Consider foreign joins only between foreign tables on the same server,
rather than between any two foreign tables with the same underlying FDW
handler function. In most if not all cases, the FDW would simply have had
to apply the same-server restriction itself (far more expensively, both for
lack of caching and because it would be repeated for each combination of
input sub-joins), or else risk nasty bugs. Anyone who's really intent on
doing something outside this restriction can always use the
set_join_pathlist_hook.
* Rename fdw_ps_tlist/custom_ps_tlist to fdw_scan_tlist/custom_scan_tlist
to better reflect what they're for, and allow these custom scan tlists
to be used even for base relations.
* Change make_foreignscan() API to include passing the fdw_scan_tlist
value, since the FDW is required to set that. Backwards compatibility
doesn't seem like an adequate reason to expect FDWs to set it in some
ad-hoc extra step, and anyway existing FDWs can just pass NIL.
* Change the API of path-generating subroutines of add_paths_to_joinrel,
and in particular that of GetForeignJoinPaths and set_join_pathlist_hook,
so that various less-used parameters are passed in a struct rather than
as separate parameter-list entries. The objective here is to reduce the
probability that future additions to those parameter lists will result in
source-level API breaks for users of these hooks. It's possible that this
is even a small win for the core code, since most CPU architectures can't
pass more than half a dozen parameters efficiently anyway. I kept root,
joinrel, outerrel, innerrel, and jointype as separate parameters to reduce
code churn in joinpath.c --- in particular, putting jointype into the
struct would have been problematic because of the subroutines' habit of
changing their local copies of that variable.
* Avoid ad-hocery in ExecAssignScanProjectionInfo. It was probably all
right for it to know about IndexOnlyScan, but if the list is to grow
we should refactor the knowledge out to the callers.
* Restore nodeForeignscan.c's previous use of the relcache to avoid
extra GetFdwRoutine lookups for base-relation scans.
* Lots of cleanup of documentation and missed comments. Re-order some
code additions into more logical places.
11 years ago
|
|
|
merge_pathkeys,
|
|
|
|
|
jointype,
|
|
|
|
|
extra);
|
|
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
/* Can't do anything else if outer path needs to be unique'd */
|
|
|
|
|
if (save_jointype == JOIN_UNIQUE_OUTER)
|
|
|
|
|
continue;
|
|
|
|
|
|
Adjust definition of cheapest_total_path to work better with LATERAL.
In the initial cut at LATERAL, I kept the rule that cheapest_total_path
was always unparameterized, which meant it had to be NULL if the relation
has no unparameterized paths. It turns out to work much more nicely if
we always have *some* path nominated as cheapest-total for each relation.
In particular, let's still say it's the cheapest unparameterized path if
there is one; if not, take the cheapest-total-cost path among those of
the minimum available parameterization. (The first rule is actually
a special case of the second.)
This allows reversion of some temporary lobotomizations I'd put in place.
In particular, the planner can now consider hash and merge joins for
joins below a parameter-supplying nestloop, even if there aren't any
unparameterized paths available. This should bring planning of
LATERAL-containing queries to the same level as queries not using that
feature.
Along the way, simplify management of parameterized paths in add_path()
and friends. In the original coding for parameterized paths in 9.2,
I tried to minimize the logic changes in add_path(), so it just treated
parameterization as yet another dimension of comparison for paths.
We later made it ignore pathkeys (sort ordering) of parameterized paths,
on the grounds that ordering isn't a useful property for the path on the
inside of a nestloop, so we might as well get rid of useless parameterized
paths as quickly as possible. But we didn't take that reasoning as far as
we should have. Startup cost isn't a useful property inside a nestloop
either, so add_path() ought to discount startup cost of parameterized paths
as well. Having done that, the secondary sorting I'd implemented (in
add_parameterized_path) is no longer needed --- any parameterized path that
survives add_path() at all is worth considering at higher levels. So this
should be a bit faster as well as simpler.
14 years ago
|
|
|
/* Can't do anything else if inner rel is parameterized by outer */
|
|
|
|
|
if (inner_cheapest_total == NULL)
|
|
|
|
|
continue;
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
/* Generate merge join paths */
|
|
|
|
|
generate_mergejoin_paths(root, joinrel, innerrel, outerpath,
|
|
|
|
|
save_jointype, extra, useallclauses,
|
|
|
|
|
inner_cheapest_total, merge_pathkeys,
|
|
|
|
|
false);
|
|
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
/*
|
|
|
|
|
* Consider partial nestloop and mergejoin plan if outerrel has any
|
|
|
|
|
* partial path and the joinrel is parallel-safe. However, we can't
|
|
|
|
|
* handle JOIN_UNIQUE_OUTER, because the outer path will be partial, and
|
|
|
|
|
* therefore we won't be able to properly guarantee uniqueness. Nor can
|
|
|
|
|
* we handle joins needing lateral rels, since partial paths must not be
|
|
|
|
|
* parameterized. Similarly, we can't handle JOIN_FULL, JOIN_RIGHT and
|
|
|
|
|
* JOIN_RIGHT_ANTI, because they can produce false null extended rows.
|
|
|
|
|
*/
|
|
|
|
|
if (joinrel->consider_parallel &&
|
|
|
|
|
save_jointype != JOIN_UNIQUE_OUTER &&
|
|
|
|
|
save_jointype != JOIN_FULL &&
|
|
|
|
|
save_jointype != JOIN_RIGHT &&
|
|
|
|
|
save_jointype != JOIN_RIGHT_ANTI &&
|
|
|
|
|
outerrel->partial_pathlist != NIL &&
|
|
|
|
|
bms_is_empty(joinrel->lateral_relids))
|
|
|
|
|
{
|
|
|
|
|
if (nestjoinOK)
|
|
|
|
|
consider_parallel_nestloop(root, joinrel, outerrel, innerrel,
|
|
|
|
|
save_jointype, extra);
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
/*
|
|
|
|
|
* If inner_cheapest_total is NULL or non parallel-safe then find the
|
|
|
|
|
* cheapest total parallel safe path. If doing JOIN_UNIQUE_INNER, we
|
|
|
|
|
* can't use any alternative inner path.
|
|
|
|
|
*/
|
|
|
|
|
if (inner_cheapest_total == NULL ||
|
|
|
|
|
!inner_cheapest_total->parallel_safe)
|
|
|
|
|
{
|
|
|
|
|
if (save_jointype == JOIN_UNIQUE_INNER)
|
|
|
|
|
return;
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
inner_cheapest_total = get_cheapest_parallel_safe_total_inner(innerrel->pathlist);
|
|
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
if (inner_cheapest_total)
|
|
|
|
|
consider_parallel_mergejoin(root, joinrel, outerrel, innerrel,
|
|
|
|
|
save_jointype, extra,
|
|
|
|
|
inner_cheapest_total);
|
|
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
/*
|
|
|
|
|
* consider_parallel_mergejoin
|
|
|
|
|
* Try to build partial paths for a joinrel by joining a partial path
|
|
|
|
|
* for the outer relation to a complete path for the inner relation.
|
|
|
|
|
*
|
|
|
|
|
* 'joinrel' is the join relation
|
|
|
|
|
* 'outerrel' is the outer join relation
|
|
|
|
|
* 'innerrel' is the inner join relation
|
|
|
|
|
* 'jointype' is the type of join to do
|
|
|
|
|
* 'extra' contains additional input values
|
|
|
|
|
* 'inner_cheapest_total' cheapest total path for innerrel
|
|
|
|
|
*/
|
|
|
|
|
static void
|
|
|
|
|
consider_parallel_mergejoin(PlannerInfo *root,
|
|
|
|
|
RelOptInfo *joinrel,
|
|
|
|
|
RelOptInfo *outerrel,
|
|
|
|
|
RelOptInfo *innerrel,
|
|
|
|
|
JoinType jointype,
|
|
|
|
|
JoinPathExtraData *extra,
|
|
|
|
|
Path *inner_cheapest_total)
|
|
|
|
|
{
|
|
|
|
|
ListCell *lc1;
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
/* generate merge join path for each partial outer path */
|
|
|
|
|
foreach(lc1, outerrel->partial_pathlist)
|
|
|
|
|
{
|
|
|
|
|
Path *outerpath = (Path *) lfirst(lc1);
|
|
|
|
|
List *merge_pathkeys;
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
/*
|
|
|
|
|
* Figure out what useful ordering any paths we create will have.
|
|
|
|
|
*/
|
|
|
|
|
merge_pathkeys = build_join_pathkeys(root, joinrel, jointype,
|
|
|
|
|
outerpath->pathkeys);
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
generate_mergejoin_paths(root, joinrel, innerrel, outerpath, jointype,
|
|
|
|
|
extra, false, inner_cheapest_total,
|
|
|
|
|
merge_pathkeys, true);
|
|
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
/*
|
|
|
|
|
* consider_parallel_nestloop
|
|
|
|
|
* Try to build partial paths for a joinrel by joining a partial path for the
|
|
|
|
|
* outer relation to a complete path for the inner relation.
|
|
|
|
|
*
|
|
|
|
|
* 'joinrel' is the join relation
|
|
|
|
|
* 'outerrel' is the outer join relation
|
|
|
|
|
* 'innerrel' is the inner join relation
|
|
|
|
|
* 'jointype' is the type of join to do
|
|
|
|
|
* 'extra' contains additional input values
|
|
|
|
|
*/
|
|
|
|
|
static void
|
|
|
|
|
consider_parallel_nestloop(PlannerInfo *root,
|
|
|
|
|
RelOptInfo *joinrel,
|
|
|
|
|
RelOptInfo *outerrel,
|
|
|
|
|
RelOptInfo *innerrel,
|
|
|
|
|
JoinType jointype,
|
|
|
|
|
JoinPathExtraData *extra)
|
|
|
|
|
{
|
|
|
|
|
JoinType save_jointype = jointype;
|
|
|
|
|
ListCell *lc1;
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
if (jointype == JOIN_UNIQUE_INNER)
|
|
|
|
|
jointype = JOIN_INNER;
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
foreach(lc1, outerrel->partial_pathlist)
|
|
|
|
|
{
|
|
|
|
|
Path *outerpath = (Path *) lfirst(lc1);
|
|
|
|
|
List *pathkeys;
|
|
|
|
|
ListCell *lc2;
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
/* Figure out what useful ordering any paths we create will have. */
|
|
|
|
|
pathkeys = build_join_pathkeys(root, joinrel, jointype,
|
|
|
|
|
outerpath->pathkeys);
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
/*
|
|
|
|
|
* Try the cheapest parameterized paths; only those which will produce
|
|
|
|
|
* an unparameterized path when joined to this outerrel will survive
|
|
|
|
|
* try_partial_nestloop_path. The cheapest unparameterized path is
|
|
|
|
|
* also in this list.
|
|
|
|
|
*/
|
|
|
|
|
foreach(lc2, innerrel->cheapest_parameterized_paths)
|
|
|
|
|
{
|
|
|
|
|
Path *innerpath = (Path *) lfirst(lc2);
|
|
|
|
|
Path *mpath;
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
/* Can't join to an inner path that is not parallel-safe */
|
|
|
|
|
if (!innerpath->parallel_safe)
|
|
|
|
|
continue;
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
/*
|
|
|
|
|
* If we're doing JOIN_UNIQUE_INNER, we can only use the inner's
|
|
|
|
|
* cheapest_total_path, and we have to unique-ify it. (We might
|
|
|
|
|
* be able to relax this to allow other safe, unparameterized
|
|
|
|
|
* inner paths, but right now create_unique_path is not on board
|
|
|
|
|
* with that.)
|
|
|
|
|
*/
|
|
|
|
|
if (save_jointype == JOIN_UNIQUE_INNER)
|
|
|
|
|
{
|
|
|
|
|
if (innerpath != innerrel->cheapest_total_path)
|
|
|
|
|
continue;
|
|
|
|
|
innerpath = (Path *) create_unique_path(root, innerrel,
|
|
|
|
|
innerpath,
|
|
|
|
|
extra->sjinfo);
|
|
|
|
|
Assert(innerpath);
|
|
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
try_partial_nestloop_path(root, joinrel, outerpath, innerpath,
|
|
|
|
|
pathkeys, jointype, extra);
|
Add Result Cache executor node (take 2)
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
5 years ago
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
/*
|
|
|
|
|
* Try generating a memoize path and see if that makes the nested
|
|
|
|
|
* loop any cheaper.
|
Add Result Cache executor node (take 2)
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
5 years ago
|
|
|
*/
|
|
|
|
|
mpath = get_memoize_path(root, innerrel, outerrel,
|
|
|
|
|
innerpath, outerpath, jointype,
|
|
|
|
|
extra);
|
|
|
|
|
if (mpath != NULL)
|
|
|
|
|
try_partial_nestloop_path(root, joinrel, outerpath, mpath,
|
Add Result Cache executor node (take 2)
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
5 years ago
|
|
|
pathkeys, jointype, extra);
|
|
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
/*
|
|
|
|
|
* hash_inner_and_outer
|
|
|
|
|
* Create hashjoin join paths by explicitly hashing both the outer and
|
|
|
|
|
* inner keys of each available hash clause.
|
|
|
|
|
*
|
|
|
|
|
* 'joinrel' is the join relation
|
|
|
|
|
* 'outerrel' is the outer join relation
|
|
|
|
|
* 'innerrel' is the inner join relation
|
|
|
|
|
* 'jointype' is the type of join to do
|
Code review for foreign/custom join pushdown patch.
Commit e7cb7ee14555cc9c5773e2c102efd6371f6f2005 included some design
decisions that seem pretty questionable to me, and there was quite a lot
of stuff not to like about the documentation and comments. Clean up
as follows:
* Consider foreign joins only between foreign tables on the same server,
rather than between any two foreign tables with the same underlying FDW
handler function. In most if not all cases, the FDW would simply have had
to apply the same-server restriction itself (far more expensively, both for
lack of caching and because it would be repeated for each combination of
input sub-joins), or else risk nasty bugs. Anyone who's really intent on
doing something outside this restriction can always use the
set_join_pathlist_hook.
* Rename fdw_ps_tlist/custom_ps_tlist to fdw_scan_tlist/custom_scan_tlist
to better reflect what they're for, and allow these custom scan tlists
to be used even for base relations.
* Change make_foreignscan() API to include passing the fdw_scan_tlist
value, since the FDW is required to set that. Backwards compatibility
doesn't seem like an adequate reason to expect FDWs to set it in some
ad-hoc extra step, and anyway existing FDWs can just pass NIL.
* Change the API of path-generating subroutines of add_paths_to_joinrel,
and in particular that of GetForeignJoinPaths and set_join_pathlist_hook,
so that various less-used parameters are passed in a struct rather than
as separate parameter-list entries. The objective here is to reduce the
probability that future additions to those parameter lists will result in
source-level API breaks for users of these hooks. It's possible that this
is even a small win for the core code, since most CPU architectures can't
pass more than half a dozen parameters efficiently anyway. I kept root,
joinrel, outerrel, innerrel, and jointype as separate parameters to reduce
code churn in joinpath.c --- in particular, putting jointype into the
struct would have been problematic because of the subroutines' habit of
changing their local copies of that variable.
* Avoid ad-hocery in ExecAssignScanProjectionInfo. It was probably all
right for it to know about IndexOnlyScan, but if the list is to grow
we should refactor the knowledge out to the callers.
* Restore nodeForeignscan.c's previous use of the relcache to avoid
extra GetFdwRoutine lookups for base-relation scans.
* Lots of cleanup of documentation and missed comments. Re-order some
code additions into more logical places.
11 years ago
|
|
|
* 'extra' contains additional input values
|
|
|
|
|
*/
|
|
|
|
|
static void
|
|
|
|
|
hash_inner_and_outer(PlannerInfo *root,
|
|
|
|
|
RelOptInfo *joinrel,
|
|
|
|
|
RelOptInfo *outerrel,
|
|
|
|
|
RelOptInfo *innerrel,
|
|
|
|
|
JoinType jointype,
|
Code review for foreign/custom join pushdown patch.
Commit e7cb7ee14555cc9c5773e2c102efd6371f6f2005 included some design
decisions that seem pretty questionable to me, and there was quite a lot
of stuff not to like about the documentation and comments. Clean up
as follows:
* Consider foreign joins only between foreign tables on the same server,
rather than between any two foreign tables with the same underlying FDW
handler function. In most if not all cases, the FDW would simply have had
to apply the same-server restriction itself (far more expensively, both for
lack of caching and because it would be repeated for each combination of
input sub-joins), or else risk nasty bugs. Anyone who's really intent on
doing something outside this restriction can always use the
set_join_pathlist_hook.
* Rename fdw_ps_tlist/custom_ps_tlist to fdw_scan_tlist/custom_scan_tlist
to better reflect what they're for, and allow these custom scan tlists
to be used even for base relations.
* Change make_foreignscan() API to include passing the fdw_scan_tlist
value, since the FDW is required to set that. Backwards compatibility
doesn't seem like an adequate reason to expect FDWs to set it in some
ad-hoc extra step, and anyway existing FDWs can just pass NIL.
* Change the API of path-generating subroutines of add_paths_to_joinrel,
and in particular that of GetForeignJoinPaths and set_join_pathlist_hook,
so that various less-used parameters are passed in a struct rather than
as separate parameter-list entries. The objective here is to reduce the
probability that future additions to those parameter lists will result in
source-level API breaks for users of these hooks. It's possible that this
is even a small win for the core code, since most CPU architectures can't
pass more than half a dozen parameters efficiently anyway. I kept root,
joinrel, outerrel, innerrel, and jointype as separate parameters to reduce
code churn in joinpath.c --- in particular, putting jointype into the
struct would have been problematic because of the subroutines' habit of
changing their local copies of that variable.
* Avoid ad-hocery in ExecAssignScanProjectionInfo. It was probably all
right for it to know about IndexOnlyScan, but if the list is to grow
we should refactor the knowledge out to the callers.
* Restore nodeForeignscan.c's previous use of the relcache to avoid
extra GetFdwRoutine lookups for base-relation scans.
* Lots of cleanup of documentation and missed comments. Re-order some
code additions into more logical places.
11 years ago
|
|
|
JoinPathExtraData *extra)
|
|
|
|
|
{
|
|
|
|
|
JoinType save_jointype = jointype;
|
|
|
|
|
bool isouterjoin = IS_OUTER_JOIN(jointype);
|
|
|
|
|
List *hashclauses;
|
|
|
|
|
ListCell *l;
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
/*
|
|
|
|
|
* We need to build only one hashclauses list for any given pair of outer
|
|
|
|
|
* and inner relations; all of the hashable clauses will be used as keys.
|
|
|
|
|
*
|
|
|
|
|
* Scan the join's restrictinfo list to find hashjoinable clauses that are
|
|
|
|
|
* usable with this pair of sub-relations.
|
|
|
|
|
*/
|
|
|
|
|
hashclauses = NIL;
|
Code review for foreign/custom join pushdown patch.
Commit e7cb7ee14555cc9c5773e2c102efd6371f6f2005 included some design
decisions that seem pretty questionable to me, and there was quite a lot
of stuff not to like about the documentation and comments. Clean up
as follows:
* Consider foreign joins only between foreign tables on the same server,
rather than between any two foreign tables with the same underlying FDW
handler function. In most if not all cases, the FDW would simply have had
to apply the same-server restriction itself (far more expensively, both for
lack of caching and because it would be repeated for each combination of
input sub-joins), or else risk nasty bugs. Anyone who's really intent on
doing something outside this restriction can always use the
set_join_pathlist_hook.
* Rename fdw_ps_tlist/custom_ps_tlist to fdw_scan_tlist/custom_scan_tlist
to better reflect what they're for, and allow these custom scan tlists
to be used even for base relations.
* Change make_foreignscan() API to include passing the fdw_scan_tlist
value, since the FDW is required to set that. Backwards compatibility
doesn't seem like an adequate reason to expect FDWs to set it in some
ad-hoc extra step, and anyway existing FDWs can just pass NIL.
* Change the API of path-generating subroutines of add_paths_to_joinrel,
and in particular that of GetForeignJoinPaths and set_join_pathlist_hook,
so that various less-used parameters are passed in a struct rather than
as separate parameter-list entries. The objective here is to reduce the
probability that future additions to those parameter lists will result in
source-level API breaks for users of these hooks. It's possible that this
is even a small win for the core code, since most CPU architectures can't
pass more than half a dozen parameters efficiently anyway. I kept root,
joinrel, outerrel, innerrel, and jointype as separate parameters to reduce
code churn in joinpath.c --- in particular, putting jointype into the
struct would have been problematic because of the subroutines' habit of
changing their local copies of that variable.
* Avoid ad-hocery in ExecAssignScanProjectionInfo. It was probably all
right for it to know about IndexOnlyScan, but if the list is to grow
we should refactor the knowledge out to the callers.
* Restore nodeForeignscan.c's previous use of the relcache to avoid
extra GetFdwRoutine lookups for base-relation scans.
* Lots of cleanup of documentation and missed comments. Re-order some
code additions into more logical places.
11 years ago
|
|
|
foreach(l, extra->restrictlist)
|
|
|
|
|
{
|
|
|
|
|
RestrictInfo *restrictinfo = (RestrictInfo *) lfirst(l);
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
/*
|
|
|
|
|
* If processing an outer join, only use its own join clauses for
|
|
|
|
|
* hashing. For inner joins we need not be so picky.
|
|
|
|
|
*/
|
|
|
|
|
if (isouterjoin && RINFO_IS_PUSHED_DOWN(restrictinfo, joinrel->relids))
|
|
|
|
|
continue;
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
if (!restrictinfo->can_join ||
|
|
|
|
|
restrictinfo->hashjoinoperator == InvalidOid)
|
|
|
|
|
continue; /* not hashjoinable */
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
/*
|
|
|
|
|
* Check if clause has the form "outer op inner" or "inner op outer".
|
|
|
|
|
*/
|
|
|
|
|
if (!clause_sides_match_join(restrictinfo, outerrel, innerrel))
|
|
|
|
|
continue; /* no good for these input relations */
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
hashclauses = lappend(hashclauses, restrictinfo);
|
|
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
/* If we found any usable hashclauses, make paths */
|
|
|
|
|
if (hashclauses)
|
|
|
|
|
{
|
|
|
|
|
/*
|
|
|
|
|
* We consider both the cheapest-total-cost and cheapest-startup-cost
|
|
|
|
|
* outer paths. There's no need to consider any but the
|
|
|
|
|
* cheapest-total-cost inner path, however.
|
|
|
|
|
*/
|
|
|
|
|
Path *cheapest_startup_outer = outerrel->cheapest_startup_path;
|
|
|
|
|
Path *cheapest_total_outer = outerrel->cheapest_total_path;
|
|
|
|
|
Path *cheapest_total_inner = innerrel->cheapest_total_path;
|
|
|
|
|
|
Adjust definition of cheapest_total_path to work better with LATERAL.
In the initial cut at LATERAL, I kept the rule that cheapest_total_path
was always unparameterized, which meant it had to be NULL if the relation
has no unparameterized paths. It turns out to work much more nicely if
we always have *some* path nominated as cheapest-total for each relation.
In particular, let's still say it's the cheapest unparameterized path if
there is one; if not, take the cheapest-total-cost path among those of
the minimum available parameterization. (The first rule is actually
a special case of the second.)
This allows reversion of some temporary lobotomizations I'd put in place.
In particular, the planner can now consider hash and merge joins for
joins below a parameter-supplying nestloop, even if there aren't any
unparameterized paths available. This should bring planning of
LATERAL-containing queries to the same level as queries not using that
feature.
Along the way, simplify management of parameterized paths in add_path()
and friends. In the original coding for parameterized paths in 9.2,
I tried to minimize the logic changes in add_path(), so it just treated
parameterization as yet another dimension of comparison for paths.
We later made it ignore pathkeys (sort ordering) of parameterized paths,
on the grounds that ordering isn't a useful property for the path on the
inside of a nestloop, so we might as well get rid of useless parameterized
paths as quickly as possible. But we didn't take that reasoning as far as
we should have. Startup cost isn't a useful property inside a nestloop
either, so add_path() ought to discount startup cost of parameterized paths
as well. Having done that, the secondary sorting I'd implemented (in
add_parameterized_path) is no longer needed --- any parameterized path that
survives add_path() at all is worth considering at higher levels. So this
should be a bit faster as well as simpler.
14 years ago
|
|
|
/*
|
|
|
|
|
* If either cheapest-total path is parameterized by the other rel, we
|
|
|
|
|
* can't use a hashjoin. (There's no use looking for alternative
|
|
|
|
|
* input paths, since these should already be the least-parameterized
|
|
|
|
|
* available paths.)
|
|
|
|
|
*/
|
|
|
|
|
if (PATH_PARAM_BY_REL(cheapest_total_outer, innerrel) ||
|
|
|
|
|
PATH_PARAM_BY_REL(cheapest_total_inner, outerrel))
|
|
|
|
|
return;
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
/* Unique-ify if need be; we ignore parameterized possibilities */
|
|
|
|
|
if (jointype == JOIN_UNIQUE_OUTER)
|
|
|
|
|
{
|
|
|
|
|
cheapest_total_outer = (Path *)
|
|
|
|
|
create_unique_path(root, outerrel,
|
Code review for foreign/custom join pushdown patch.
Commit e7cb7ee14555cc9c5773e2c102efd6371f6f2005 included some design
decisions that seem pretty questionable to me, and there was quite a lot
of stuff not to like about the documentation and comments. Clean up
as follows:
* Consider foreign joins only between foreign tables on the same server,
rather than between any two foreign tables with the same underlying FDW
handler function. In most if not all cases, the FDW would simply have had
to apply the same-server restriction itself (far more expensively, both for
lack of caching and because it would be repeated for each combination of
input sub-joins), or else risk nasty bugs. Anyone who's really intent on
doing something outside this restriction can always use the
set_join_pathlist_hook.
* Rename fdw_ps_tlist/custom_ps_tlist to fdw_scan_tlist/custom_scan_tlist
to better reflect what they're for, and allow these custom scan tlists
to be used even for base relations.
* Change make_foreignscan() API to include passing the fdw_scan_tlist
value, since the FDW is required to set that. Backwards compatibility
doesn't seem like an adequate reason to expect FDWs to set it in some
ad-hoc extra step, and anyway existing FDWs can just pass NIL.
* Change the API of path-generating subroutines of add_paths_to_joinrel,
and in particular that of GetForeignJoinPaths and set_join_pathlist_hook,
so that various less-used parameters are passed in a struct rather than
as separate parameter-list entries. The objective here is to reduce the
probability that future additions to those parameter lists will result in
source-level API breaks for users of these hooks. It's possible that this
is even a small win for the core code, since most CPU architectures can't
pass more than half a dozen parameters efficiently anyway. I kept root,
joinrel, outerrel, innerrel, and jointype as separate parameters to reduce
code churn in joinpath.c --- in particular, putting jointype into the
struct would have been problematic because of the subroutines' habit of
changing their local copies of that variable.
* Avoid ad-hocery in ExecAssignScanProjectionInfo. It was probably all
right for it to know about IndexOnlyScan, but if the list is to grow
we should refactor the knowledge out to the callers.
* Restore nodeForeignscan.c's previous use of the relcache to avoid
extra GetFdwRoutine lookups for base-relation scans.
* Lots of cleanup of documentation and missed comments. Re-order some
code additions into more logical places.
11 years ago
|
|
|
cheapest_total_outer, extra->sjinfo);
|
|
|
|
|
Assert(cheapest_total_outer);
|
|
|
|
|
jointype = JOIN_INNER;
|
|
|
|
|
try_hashjoin_path(root,
|
|
|
|
|
joinrel,
|
|
|
|
|
cheapest_total_outer,
|
|
|
|
|
cheapest_total_inner,
|
Code review for foreign/custom join pushdown patch.
Commit e7cb7ee14555cc9c5773e2c102efd6371f6f2005 included some design
decisions that seem pretty questionable to me, and there was quite a lot
of stuff not to like about the documentation and comments. Clean up
as follows:
* Consider foreign joins only between foreign tables on the same server,
rather than between any two foreign tables with the same underlying FDW
handler function. In most if not all cases, the FDW would simply have had
to apply the same-server restriction itself (far more expensively, both for
lack of caching and because it would be repeated for each combination of
input sub-joins), or else risk nasty bugs. Anyone who's really intent on
doing something outside this restriction can always use the
set_join_pathlist_hook.
* Rename fdw_ps_tlist/custom_ps_tlist to fdw_scan_tlist/custom_scan_tlist
to better reflect what they're for, and allow these custom scan tlists
to be used even for base relations.
* Change make_foreignscan() API to include passing the fdw_scan_tlist
value, since the FDW is required to set that. Backwards compatibility
doesn't seem like an adequate reason to expect FDWs to set it in some
ad-hoc extra step, and anyway existing FDWs can just pass NIL.
* Change the API of path-generating subroutines of add_paths_to_joinrel,
and in particular that of GetForeignJoinPaths and set_join_pathlist_hook,
so that various less-used parameters are passed in a struct rather than
as separate parameter-list entries. The objective here is to reduce the
probability that future additions to those parameter lists will result in
source-level API breaks for users of these hooks. It's possible that this
is even a small win for the core code, since most CPU architectures can't
pass more than half a dozen parameters efficiently anyway. I kept root,
joinrel, outerrel, innerrel, and jointype as separate parameters to reduce
code churn in joinpath.c --- in particular, putting jointype into the
struct would have been problematic because of the subroutines' habit of
changing their local copies of that variable.
* Avoid ad-hocery in ExecAssignScanProjectionInfo. It was probably all
right for it to know about IndexOnlyScan, but if the list is to grow
we should refactor the knowledge out to the callers.
* Restore nodeForeignscan.c's previous use of the relcache to avoid
extra GetFdwRoutine lookups for base-relation scans.
* Lots of cleanup of documentation and missed comments. Re-order some
code additions into more logical places.
11 years ago
|
|
|
hashclauses,
|
|
|
|
|
jointype,
|
|
|
|
|
extra);
|
|
|
|
|
/* no possibility of cheap startup here */
|
|
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
|
else if (jointype == JOIN_UNIQUE_INNER)
|
|
|
|
|
{
|
|
|
|
|
cheapest_total_inner = (Path *)
|
|
|
|
|
create_unique_path(root, innerrel,
|
Code review for foreign/custom join pushdown patch.
Commit e7cb7ee14555cc9c5773e2c102efd6371f6f2005 included some design
decisions that seem pretty questionable to me, and there was quite a lot
of stuff not to like about the documentation and comments. Clean up
as follows:
* Consider foreign joins only between foreign tables on the same server,
rather than between any two foreign tables with the same underlying FDW
handler function. In most if not all cases, the FDW would simply have had
to apply the same-server restriction itself (far more expensively, both for
lack of caching and because it would be repeated for each combination of
input sub-joins), or else risk nasty bugs. Anyone who's really intent on
doing something outside this restriction can always use the
set_join_pathlist_hook.
* Rename fdw_ps_tlist/custom_ps_tlist to fdw_scan_tlist/custom_scan_tlist
to better reflect what they're for, and allow these custom scan tlists
to be used even for base relations.
* Change make_foreignscan() API to include passing the fdw_scan_tlist
value, since the FDW is required to set that. Backwards compatibility
doesn't seem like an adequate reason to expect FDWs to set it in some
ad-hoc extra step, and anyway existing FDWs can just pass NIL.
* Change the API of path-generating subroutines of add_paths_to_joinrel,
and in particular that of GetForeignJoinPaths and set_join_pathlist_hook,
so that various less-used parameters are passed in a struct rather than
as separate parameter-list entries. The objective here is to reduce the
probability that future additions to those parameter lists will result in
source-level API breaks for users of these hooks. It's possible that this
is even a small win for the core code, since most CPU architectures can't
pass more than half a dozen parameters efficiently anyway. I kept root,
joinrel, outerrel, innerrel, and jointype as separate parameters to reduce
code churn in joinpath.c --- in particular, putting jointype into the
struct would have been problematic because of the subroutines' habit of
changing their local copies of that variable.
* Avoid ad-hocery in ExecAssignScanProjectionInfo. It was probably all
right for it to know about IndexOnlyScan, but if the list is to grow
we should refactor the knowledge out to the callers.
* Restore nodeForeignscan.c's previous use of the relcache to avoid
extra GetFdwRoutine lookups for base-relation scans.
* Lots of cleanup of documentation and missed comments. Re-order some
code additions into more logical places.
11 years ago
|
|
|
cheapest_total_inner, extra->sjinfo);
|
|
|
|
|
Assert(cheapest_total_inner);
|
|
|
|
|
jointype = JOIN_INNER;
|
|
|
|
|
try_hashjoin_path(root,
|
|
|
|
|
joinrel,
|
|
|
|
|
cheapest_total_outer,
|
|
|
|
|
cheapest_total_inner,
|
Code review for foreign/custom join pushdown patch.
Commit e7cb7ee14555cc9c5773e2c102efd6371f6f2005 included some design
decisions that seem pretty questionable to me, and there was quite a lot
of stuff not to like about the documentation and comments. Clean up
as follows:
* Consider foreign joins only between foreign tables on the same server,
rather than between any two foreign tables with the same underlying FDW
handler function. In most if not all cases, the FDW would simply have had
to apply the same-server restriction itself (far more expensively, both for
lack of caching and because it would be repeated for each combination of
input sub-joins), or else risk nasty bugs. Anyone who's really intent on
doing something outside this restriction can always use the
set_join_pathlist_hook.
* Rename fdw_ps_tlist/custom_ps_tlist to fdw_scan_tlist/custom_scan_tlist
to better reflect what they're for, and allow these custom scan tlists
to be used even for base relations.
* Change make_foreignscan() API to include passing the fdw_scan_tlist
value, since the FDW is required to set that. Backwards compatibility
doesn't seem like an adequate reason to expect FDWs to set it in some
ad-hoc extra step, and anyway existing FDWs can just pass NIL.
* Change the API of path-generating subroutines of add_paths_to_joinrel,
and in particular that of GetForeignJoinPaths and set_join_pathlist_hook,
so that various less-used parameters are passed in a struct rather than
as separate parameter-list entries. The objective here is to reduce the
probability that future additions to those parameter lists will result in
source-level API breaks for users of these hooks. It's possible that this
is even a small win for the core code, since most CPU architectures can't
pass more than half a dozen parameters efficiently anyway. I kept root,
joinrel, outerrel, innerrel, and jointype as separate parameters to reduce
code churn in joinpath.c --- in particular, putting jointype into the
struct would have been problematic because of the subroutines' habit of
changing their local copies of that variable.
* Avoid ad-hocery in ExecAssignScanProjectionInfo. It was probably all
right for it to know about IndexOnlyScan, but if the list is to grow
we should refactor the knowledge out to the callers.
* Restore nodeForeignscan.c's previous use of the relcache to avoid
extra GetFdwRoutine lookups for base-relation scans.
* Lots of cleanup of documentation and missed comments. Re-order some
code additions into more logical places.
11 years ago
|
|
|
hashclauses,
|
|
|
|
|
jointype,
|
|
|
|
|
extra);
|
Adjust definition of cheapest_total_path to work better with LATERAL.
In the initial cut at LATERAL, I kept the rule that cheapest_total_path
was always unparameterized, which meant it had to be NULL if the relation
has no unparameterized paths. It turns out to work much more nicely if
we always have *some* path nominated as cheapest-total for each relation.
In particular, let's still say it's the cheapest unparameterized path if
there is one; if not, take the cheapest-total-cost path among those of
the minimum available parameterization. (The first rule is actually
a special case of the second.)
This allows reversion of some temporary lobotomizations I'd put in place.
In particular, the planner can now consider hash and merge joins for
joins below a parameter-supplying nestloop, even if there aren't any
unparameterized paths available. This should bring planning of
LATERAL-containing queries to the same level as queries not using that
feature.
Along the way, simplify management of parameterized paths in add_path()
and friends. In the original coding for parameterized paths in 9.2,
I tried to minimize the logic changes in add_path(), so it just treated
parameterization as yet another dimension of comparison for paths.
We later made it ignore pathkeys (sort ordering) of parameterized paths,
on the grounds that ordering isn't a useful property for the path on the
inside of a nestloop, so we might as well get rid of useless parameterized
paths as quickly as possible. But we didn't take that reasoning as far as
we should have. Startup cost isn't a useful property inside a nestloop
either, so add_path() ought to discount startup cost of parameterized paths
as well. Having done that, the secondary sorting I'd implemented (in
add_parameterized_path) is no longer needed --- any parameterized path that
survives add_path() at all is worth considering at higher levels. So this
should be a bit faster as well as simpler.
14 years ago
|
|
|
if (cheapest_startup_outer != NULL &&
|
|
|
|
|
cheapest_startup_outer != cheapest_total_outer)
|
|
|
|
|
try_hashjoin_path(root,
|
|
|
|
|
joinrel,
|
|
|
|
|
cheapest_startup_outer,
|
|
|
|
|
cheapest_total_inner,
|
Code review for foreign/custom join pushdown patch.
Commit e7cb7ee14555cc9c5773e2c102efd6371f6f2005 included some design
decisions that seem pretty questionable to me, and there was quite a lot
of stuff not to like about the documentation and comments. Clean up
as follows:
* Consider foreign joins only between foreign tables on the same server,
rather than between any two foreign tables with the same underlying FDW
handler function. In most if not all cases, the FDW would simply have had
to apply the same-server restriction itself (far more expensively, both for
lack of caching and because it would be repeated for each combination of
input sub-joins), or else risk nasty bugs. Anyone who's really intent on
doing something outside this restriction can always use the
set_join_pathlist_hook.
* Rename fdw_ps_tlist/custom_ps_tlist to fdw_scan_tlist/custom_scan_tlist
to better reflect what they're for, and allow these custom scan tlists
to be used even for base relations.
* Change make_foreignscan() API to include passing the fdw_scan_tlist
value, since the FDW is required to set that. Backwards compatibility
doesn't seem like an adequate reason to expect FDWs to set it in some
ad-hoc extra step, and anyway existing FDWs can just pass NIL.
* Change the API of path-generating subroutines of add_paths_to_joinrel,
and in particular that of GetForeignJoinPaths and set_join_pathlist_hook,
so that various less-used parameters are passed in a struct rather than
as separate parameter-list entries. The objective here is to reduce the
probability that future additions to those parameter lists will result in
source-level API breaks for users of these hooks. It's possible that this
is even a small win for the core code, since most CPU architectures can't
pass more than half a dozen parameters efficiently anyway. I kept root,
joinrel, outerrel, innerrel, and jointype as separate parameters to reduce
code churn in joinpath.c --- in particular, putting jointype into the
struct would have been problematic because of the subroutines' habit of
changing their local copies of that variable.
* Avoid ad-hocery in ExecAssignScanProjectionInfo. It was probably all
right for it to know about IndexOnlyScan, but if the list is to grow
we should refactor the knowledge out to the callers.
* Restore nodeForeignscan.c's previous use of the relcache to avoid
extra GetFdwRoutine lookups for base-relation scans.
* Lots of cleanup of documentation and missed comments. Re-order some
code additions into more logical places.
11 years ago
|
|
|
hashclauses,
|
|
|
|
|
jointype,
|
|
|
|
|
extra);
|
|
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
|
else
|
|
|
|
|
{
|
|
|
|
|
/*
|
|
|
|
|
* For other jointypes, we consider the cheapest startup outer
|
|
|
|
|
* together with the cheapest total inner, and then consider
|
|
|
|
|
* pairings of cheapest-total paths including parameterized ones.
|
|
|
|
|
* There is no use in generating parameterized paths on the basis
|
|
|
|
|
* of possibly cheap startup cost, so this is sufficient.
|
|
|
|
|
*/
|
|
|
|
|
ListCell *lc1;
|
|
|
|
|
ListCell *lc2;
|
|
|
|
|
|
Adjust definition of cheapest_total_path to work better with LATERAL.
In the initial cut at LATERAL, I kept the rule that cheapest_total_path
was always unparameterized, which meant it had to be NULL if the relation
has no unparameterized paths. It turns out to work much more nicely if
we always have *some* path nominated as cheapest-total for each relation.
In particular, let's still say it's the cheapest unparameterized path if
there is one; if not, take the cheapest-total-cost path among those of
the minimum available parameterization. (The first rule is actually
a special case of the second.)
This allows reversion of some temporary lobotomizations I'd put in place.
In particular, the planner can now consider hash and merge joins for
joins below a parameter-supplying nestloop, even if there aren't any
unparameterized paths available. This should bring planning of
LATERAL-containing queries to the same level as queries not using that
feature.
Along the way, simplify management of parameterized paths in add_path()
and friends. In the original coding for parameterized paths in 9.2,
I tried to minimize the logic changes in add_path(), so it just treated
parameterization as yet another dimension of comparison for paths.
We later made it ignore pathkeys (sort ordering) of parameterized paths,
on the grounds that ordering isn't a useful property for the path on the
inside of a nestloop, so we might as well get rid of useless parameterized
paths as quickly as possible. But we didn't take that reasoning as far as
we should have. Startup cost isn't a useful property inside a nestloop
either, so add_path() ought to discount startup cost of parameterized paths
as well. Having done that, the secondary sorting I'd implemented (in
add_parameterized_path) is no longer needed --- any parameterized path that
survives add_path() at all is worth considering at higher levels. So this
should be a bit faster as well as simpler.
14 years ago
|
|
|
if (cheapest_startup_outer != NULL)
|
|
|
|
|
try_hashjoin_path(root,
|
|
|
|
|
joinrel,
|
|
|
|
|
cheapest_startup_outer,
|
|
|
|
|
cheapest_total_inner,
|
Code review for foreign/custom join pushdown patch.
Commit e7cb7ee14555cc9c5773e2c102efd6371f6f2005 included some design
decisions that seem pretty questionable to me, and there was quite a lot
of stuff not to like about the documentation and comments. Clean up
as follows:
* Consider foreign joins only between foreign tables on the same server,
rather than between any two foreign tables with the same underlying FDW
handler function. In most if not all cases, the FDW would simply have had
to apply the same-server restriction itself (far more expensively, both for
lack of caching and because it would be repeated for each combination of
input sub-joins), or else risk nasty bugs. Anyone who's really intent on
doing something outside this restriction can always use the
set_join_pathlist_hook.
* Rename fdw_ps_tlist/custom_ps_tlist to fdw_scan_tlist/custom_scan_tlist
to better reflect what they're for, and allow these custom scan tlists
to be used even for base relations.
* Change make_foreignscan() API to include passing the fdw_scan_tlist
value, since the FDW is required to set that. Backwards compatibility
doesn't seem like an adequate reason to expect FDWs to set it in some
ad-hoc extra step, and anyway existing FDWs can just pass NIL.
* Change the API of path-generating subroutines of add_paths_to_joinrel,
and in particular that of GetForeignJoinPaths and set_join_pathlist_hook,
so that various less-used parameters are passed in a struct rather than
as separate parameter-list entries. The objective here is to reduce the
probability that future additions to those parameter lists will result in
source-level API breaks for users of these hooks. It's possible that this
is even a small win for the core code, since most CPU architectures can't
pass more than half a dozen parameters efficiently anyway. I kept root,
joinrel, outerrel, innerrel, and jointype as separate parameters to reduce
code churn in joinpath.c --- in particular, putting jointype into the
struct would have been problematic because of the subroutines' habit of
changing their local copies of that variable.
* Avoid ad-hocery in ExecAssignScanProjectionInfo. It was probably all
right for it to know about IndexOnlyScan, but if the list is to grow
we should refactor the knowledge out to the callers.
* Restore nodeForeignscan.c's previous use of the relcache to avoid
extra GetFdwRoutine lookups for base-relation scans.
* Lots of cleanup of documentation and missed comments. Re-order some
code additions into more logical places.
11 years ago
|
|
|
hashclauses,
|
|
|
|
|
jointype,
|
|
|
|
|
extra);
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
foreach(lc1, outerrel->cheapest_parameterized_paths)
|
|
|
|
|
{
|
|
|
|
|
Path *outerpath = (Path *) lfirst(lc1);
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
/*
|
|
|
|
|
* We cannot use an outer path that is parameterized by the
|
|
|
|
|
* inner rel.
|
|
|
|
|
*/
|
Adjust definition of cheapest_total_path to work better with LATERAL.
In the initial cut at LATERAL, I kept the rule that cheapest_total_path
was always unparameterized, which meant it had to be NULL if the relation
has no unparameterized paths. It turns out to work much more nicely if
we always have *some* path nominated as cheapest-total for each relation.
In particular, let's still say it's the cheapest unparameterized path if
there is one; if not, take the cheapest-total-cost path among those of
the minimum available parameterization. (The first rule is actually
a special case of the second.)
This allows reversion of some temporary lobotomizations I'd put in place.
In particular, the planner can now consider hash and merge joins for
joins below a parameter-supplying nestloop, even if there aren't any
unparameterized paths available. This should bring planning of
LATERAL-containing queries to the same level as queries not using that
feature.
Along the way, simplify management of parameterized paths in add_path()
and friends. In the original coding for parameterized paths in 9.2,
I tried to minimize the logic changes in add_path(), so it just treated
parameterization as yet another dimension of comparison for paths.
We later made it ignore pathkeys (sort ordering) of parameterized paths,
on the grounds that ordering isn't a useful property for the path on the
inside of a nestloop, so we might as well get rid of useless parameterized
paths as quickly as possible. But we didn't take that reasoning as far as
we should have. Startup cost isn't a useful property inside a nestloop
either, so add_path() ought to discount startup cost of parameterized paths
as well. Having done that, the secondary sorting I'd implemented (in
add_parameterized_path) is no longer needed --- any parameterized path that
survives add_path() at all is worth considering at higher levels. So this
should be a bit faster as well as simpler.
14 years ago
|
|
|
if (PATH_PARAM_BY_REL(outerpath, innerrel))
|
|
|
|
|
continue;
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
foreach(lc2, innerrel->cheapest_parameterized_paths)
|
|
|
|
|
{
|
|
|
|
|
Path *innerpath = (Path *) lfirst(lc2);
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
/*
|
|
|
|
|
* We cannot use an inner path that is parameterized by
|
|
|
|
|
* the outer rel, either.
|
|
|
|
|
*/
|
Adjust definition of cheapest_total_path to work better with LATERAL.
In the initial cut at LATERAL, I kept the rule that cheapest_total_path
was always unparameterized, which meant it had to be NULL if the relation
has no unparameterized paths. It turns out to work much more nicely if
we always have *some* path nominated as cheapest-total for each relation.
In particular, let's still say it's the cheapest unparameterized path if
there is one; if not, take the cheapest-total-cost path among those of
the minimum available parameterization. (The first rule is actually
a special case of the second.)
This allows reversion of some temporary lobotomizations I'd put in place.
In particular, the planner can now consider hash and merge joins for
joins below a parameter-supplying nestloop, even if there aren't any
unparameterized paths available. This should bring planning of
LATERAL-containing queries to the same level as queries not using that
feature.
Along the way, simplify management of parameterized paths in add_path()
and friends. In the original coding for parameterized paths in 9.2,
I tried to minimize the logic changes in add_path(), so it just treated
parameterization as yet another dimension of comparison for paths.
We later made it ignore pathkeys (sort ordering) of parameterized paths,
on the grounds that ordering isn't a useful property for the path on the
inside of a nestloop, so we might as well get rid of useless parameterized
paths as quickly as possible. But we didn't take that reasoning as far as
we should have. Startup cost isn't a useful property inside a nestloop
either, so add_path() ought to discount startup cost of parameterized paths
as well. Having done that, the secondary sorting I'd implemented (in
add_parameterized_path) is no longer needed --- any parameterized path that
survives add_path() at all is worth considering at higher levels. So this
should be a bit faster as well as simpler.
14 years ago
|
|
|
if (PATH_PARAM_BY_REL(innerpath, outerrel))
|
|
|
|
|
continue;
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
if (outerpath == cheapest_startup_outer &&
|
|
|
|
|
innerpath == cheapest_total_inner)
|
Phase 2 of pgindent updates.
Change pg_bsd_indent to follow upstream rules for placement of comments
to the right of code, and remove pgindent hack that caused comments
following #endif to not obey the general rule.
Commit e3860ffa4dd0dad0dd9eea4be9cc1412373a8c89 wasn't actually using
the published version of pg_bsd_indent, but a hacked-up version that
tried to minimize the amount of movement of comments to the right of
code. The situation of interest is where such a comment has to be
moved to the right of its default placement at column 33 because there's
code there. BSD indent has always moved right in units of tab stops
in such cases --- but in the previous incarnation, indent was working
in 8-space tab stops, while now it knows we use 4-space tabs. So the
net result is that in about half the cases, such comments are placed
one tab stop left of before. This is better all around: it leaves
more room on the line for comment text, and it means that in such
cases the comment uniformly starts at the next 4-space tab stop after
the code, rather than sometimes one and sometimes two tabs after.
Also, ensure that comments following #endif are indented the same
as comments following other preprocessor commands such as #else.
That inconsistency turns out to have been self-inflicted damage
from a poorly-thought-through post-indent "fixup" in pgindent.
This patch is much less interesting than the first round of indent
changes, but also bulkier, so I thought it best to separate the effects.
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/E1dAmxK-0006EE-1r@gemulon.postgresql.org
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/30527.1495162840@sss.pgh.pa.us
9 years ago
|
|
|
continue; /* already tried it */
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
try_hashjoin_path(root,
|
|
|
|
|
joinrel,
|
|
|
|
|
outerpath,
|
|
|
|
|
innerpath,
|
Code review for foreign/custom join pushdown patch.
Commit e7cb7ee14555cc9c5773e2c102efd6371f6f2005 included some design
decisions that seem pretty questionable to me, and there was quite a lot
of stuff not to like about the documentation and comments. Clean up
as follows:
* Consider foreign joins only between foreign tables on the same server,
rather than between any two foreign tables with the same underlying FDW
handler function. In most if not all cases, the FDW would simply have had
to apply the same-server restriction itself (far more expensively, both for
lack of caching and because it would be repeated for each combination of
input sub-joins), or else risk nasty bugs. Anyone who's really intent on
doing something outside this restriction can always use the
set_join_pathlist_hook.
* Rename fdw_ps_tlist/custom_ps_tlist to fdw_scan_tlist/custom_scan_tlist
to better reflect what they're for, and allow these custom scan tlists
to be used even for base relations.
* Change make_foreignscan() API to include passing the fdw_scan_tlist
value, since the FDW is required to set that. Backwards compatibility
doesn't seem like an adequate reason to expect FDWs to set it in some
ad-hoc extra step, and anyway existing FDWs can just pass NIL.
* Change the API of path-generating subroutines of add_paths_to_joinrel,
and in particular that of GetForeignJoinPaths and set_join_pathlist_hook,
so that various less-used parameters are passed in a struct rather than
as separate parameter-list entries. The objective here is to reduce the
probability that future additions to those parameter lists will result in
source-level API breaks for users of these hooks. It's possible that this
is even a small win for the core code, since most CPU architectures can't
pass more than half a dozen parameters efficiently anyway. I kept root,
joinrel, outerrel, innerrel, and jointype as separate parameters to reduce
code churn in joinpath.c --- in particular, putting jointype into the
struct would have been problematic because of the subroutines' habit of
changing their local copies of that variable.
* Avoid ad-hocery in ExecAssignScanProjectionInfo. It was probably all
right for it to know about IndexOnlyScan, but if the list is to grow
we should refactor the knowledge out to the callers.
* Restore nodeForeignscan.c's previous use of the relcache to avoid
extra GetFdwRoutine lookups for base-relation scans.
* Lots of cleanup of documentation and missed comments. Re-order some
code additions into more logical places.
11 years ago
|
|
|
hashclauses,
|
|
|
|
|
jointype,
|
|
|
|
|
extra);
|
|
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
/*
|
|
|
|
|
* If the joinrel is parallel-safe, we may be able to consider a
|
|
|
|
|
* partial hash join. However, we can't handle JOIN_UNIQUE_OUTER,
|
|
|
|
|
* because the outer path will be partial, and therefore we won't be
|
|
|
|
|
* able to properly guarantee uniqueness. Also, the resulting path
|
|
|
|
|
* must not be parameterized.
|
|
|
|
|
*/
|
|
|
|
|
if (joinrel->consider_parallel &&
|
|
|
|
|
save_jointype != JOIN_UNIQUE_OUTER &&
|
|
|
|
|
outerrel->partial_pathlist != NIL &&
|
|
|
|
|
bms_is_empty(joinrel->lateral_relids))
|
|
|
|
|
{
|
|
|
|
|
Path *cheapest_partial_outer;
|
Add parallel-aware hash joins.
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.com
https://postgr.es/m/CAEepm=37HKyJ4U6XOLi=JgfSHM3o6B-GaeO-6hkOmneTDkH+Uw@mail.gmail.com
8 years ago
|
|
|
Path *cheapest_partial_inner = NULL;
|
|
|
|
|
Path *cheapest_safe_inner = NULL;
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
cheapest_partial_outer =
|
|
|
|
|
(Path *) linitial(outerrel->partial_pathlist);
|
|
|
|
|
|
Add parallel-aware hash joins.
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.com
https://postgr.es/m/CAEepm=37HKyJ4U6XOLi=JgfSHM3o6B-GaeO-6hkOmneTDkH+Uw@mail.gmail.com
8 years ago
|
|
|
/*
|
|
|
|
|
* Can we use a partial inner plan too, so that we can build a
|
|
|
|
|
* shared hash table in parallel? We can't handle
|
|
|
|
|
* JOIN_UNIQUE_INNER because we can't guarantee uniqueness.
|
Add parallel-aware hash joins.
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.com
https://postgr.es/m/CAEepm=37HKyJ4U6XOLi=JgfSHM3o6B-GaeO-6hkOmneTDkH+Uw@mail.gmail.com
8 years ago
|
|
|
*/
|
|
|
|
|
if (innerrel->partial_pathlist != NIL &&
|
|
|
|
|
save_jointype != JOIN_UNIQUE_INNER &&
|
|
|
|
|
enable_parallel_hash)
|
Add parallel-aware hash joins.
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.com
https://postgr.es/m/CAEepm=37HKyJ4U6XOLi=JgfSHM3o6B-GaeO-6hkOmneTDkH+Uw@mail.gmail.com
8 years ago
|
|
|
{
|
|
|
|
|
cheapest_partial_inner =
|
|
|
|
|
(Path *) linitial(innerrel->partial_pathlist);
|
|
|
|
|
try_partial_hashjoin_path(root, joinrel,
|
|
|
|
|
cheapest_partial_outer,
|
|
|
|
|
cheapest_partial_inner,
|
|
|
|
|
hashclauses, jointype, extra,
|
|
|
|
|
true /* parallel_hash */ );
|
|
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
/*
|
|
|
|
|
* Normally, given that the joinrel is parallel-safe, the cheapest
|
|
|
|
|
* total inner path will also be parallel-safe, but if not, we'll
|
|
|
|
|
* have to search for the cheapest safe, unparameterized inner
|
|
|
|
|
* path. If doing JOIN_UNIQUE_INNER, we can't use any alternative
|
|
|
|
|
* inner path. If full, right, or right-anti join, we can't use
|
|
|
|
|
* parallelism (building the hash table in each backend) because
|
|
|
|
|
* no one process has all the match bits.
|
|
|
|
|
*/
|
|
|
|
|
if (save_jointype == JOIN_FULL ||
|
|
|
|
|
save_jointype == JOIN_RIGHT ||
|
|
|
|
|
save_jointype == JOIN_RIGHT_ANTI)
|
Parallel Hash Full Join.
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
3 years ago
|
|
|
cheapest_safe_inner = NULL;
|
|
|
|
|
else if (cheapest_total_inner->parallel_safe)
|
|
|
|
|
cheapest_safe_inner = cheapest_total_inner;
|
|
|
|
|
else if (save_jointype != JOIN_UNIQUE_INNER)
|
|
|
|
|
cheapest_safe_inner =
|
|
|
|
|
get_cheapest_parallel_safe_total_inner(innerrel->pathlist);
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
if (cheapest_safe_inner != NULL)
|
|
|
|
|
try_partial_hashjoin_path(root, joinrel,
|
|
|
|
|
cheapest_partial_outer,
|
|
|
|
|
cheapest_safe_inner,
|
Add parallel-aware hash joins.
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.com
https://postgr.es/m/CAEepm=37HKyJ4U6XOLi=JgfSHM3o6B-GaeO-6hkOmneTDkH+Uw@mail.gmail.com
8 years ago
|
|
|
hashclauses, jointype, extra,
|
|
|
|
|
false /* parallel_hash */ );
|
|
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
/*
|
|
|
|
|
* select_mergejoin_clauses
|
|
|
|
|
* Select mergejoin clauses that are usable for a particular join.
|
|
|
|
|
* Returns a list of RestrictInfo nodes for those clauses.
|
|
|
|
|
*
|
|
|
|
|
* *mergejoin_allowed is normally set to true, but it is set to false if
|
|
|
|
|
* this is a right/right-anti/full join and there are nonmergejoinable join
|
|
|
|
|
* clauses. The executor's mergejoin machinery cannot handle such cases, so
|
|
|
|
|
* we have to avoid generating a mergejoin plan. (Note that this flag does
|
|
|
|
|
* NOT consider whether there are actually any mergejoinable clauses. This is
|
|
|
|
|
* correct because in some cases we need to build a clauseless mergejoin.
|
|
|
|
|
* Simply returning NIL is therefore not enough to distinguish safe from
|
|
|
|
|
* unsafe cases.)
|
|
|
|
|
*
|
|
|
|
|
* We also mark each selected RestrictInfo to show which side is currently
|
|
|
|
|
* being considered as outer. These are transient markings that are only
|
|
|
|
|
* good for the duration of the current add_paths_to_joinrel() call!
|
|
|
|
|
*
|
|
|
|
|
* We examine each restrictinfo clause known for the join to see
|
|
|
|
|
* if it is mergejoinable and involves vars from the two sub-relations
|
|
|
|
|
* currently of interest.
|
|
|
|
|
*/
|
|
|
|
|
static List *
|
Fix some planner issues found while investigating Kevin Grittner's report
of poorer planning in 8.3 than 8.2:
1. After pushing a constant across an outer join --- ie, given
"a LEFT JOIN b ON (a.x = b.y) WHERE a.x = 42", we can deduce that b.y is
sort of equal to 42, in the sense that we needn't fetch any b rows where
it isn't 42 --- loop to see if any additional deductions can be made.
Previous releases did that by recursing, but I had mistakenly thought that
this was no longer necessary given the EquivalenceClass machinery.
2. Allow pushing constants across outer join conditions even if the
condition is outerjoin_delayed due to a lower outer join. This is safe
as long as the condition is strict and we re-test it at the upper join.
3. Keep the outer-join clause even if we successfully push a constant
across it. This is *necessary* in the outerjoin_delayed case, but
even in the simple case, it seems better to do this to ensure that the
join search order heuristics will consider the join as reasonable to
make. Mark such a clause as having selectivity 1.0, though, since it's
not going to eliminate very many rows after application of the constant
condition.
4. Tweak have_relevant_eclass_joinclause to report that two relations
are joinable when they have vars that are equated to the same constant.
We won't actually generate any joinclause from such an EquivalenceClass,
but again it seems that in such a case it's a good idea to consider
the join as worth costing out.
5. Fix a bug in select_mergejoin_clauses that was exposed by these
changes: we have to reject candidate mergejoin clauses if either side was
equated to a constant, because we can't construct a canonical pathkey list
for such a clause. This is an implementation restriction that might be
worth fixing someday, but it doesn't seem critical to get it done for 8.3.
18 years ago
|
|
|
select_mergejoin_clauses(PlannerInfo *root,
|
|
|
|
|
RelOptInfo *joinrel,
|
|
|
|
|
RelOptInfo *outerrel,
|
|
|
|
|
RelOptInfo *innerrel,
|
|
|
|
|
List *restrictlist,
|
|
|
|
|
JoinType jointype,
|
|
|
|
|
bool *mergejoin_allowed)
|
|
|
|
|
{
|
|
|
|
|
List *result_list = NIL;
|
|
|
|
|
bool isouterjoin = IS_OUTER_JOIN(jointype);
|
|
|
|
|
bool have_nonmergeable_joinclause = false;
|
|
|
|
|
ListCell *l;
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
foreach(l, restrictlist)
|
|
|
|
|
{
|
|
|
|
|
RestrictInfo *restrictinfo = (RestrictInfo *) lfirst(l);
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
/*
|
|
|
|
|
* If processing an outer join, only use its own join clauses in the
|
|
|
|
|
* merge. For inner joins we can use pushed-down clauses too. (Note:
|
|
|
|
|
* we don't set have_nonmergeable_joinclause here because pushed-down
|
|
|
|
|
* clauses will become otherquals not joinquals.)
|
|
|
|
|
*/
|
|
|
|
|
if (isouterjoin && RINFO_IS_PUSHED_DOWN(restrictinfo, joinrel->relids))
|
|
|
|
|
continue;
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
/* Check that clause is a mergeable operator clause */
|
|
|
|
|
if (!restrictinfo->can_join ||
|
|
|
|
|
restrictinfo->mergeopfamilies == NIL)
|
|
|
|
|
{
|
|
|
|
|
/*
|
|
|
|
|
* The executor can handle extra joinquals that are constants, but
|
|
|
|
|
* not anything else, when doing right/right-anti/full merge join.
|
|
|
|
|
* (The reason to support constants is so we can do FULL JOIN ON
|
|
|
|
|
* FALSE.)
|
|
|
|
|
*/
|
|
|
|
|
if (!restrictinfo->clause || !IsA(restrictinfo->clause, Const))
|
|
|
|
|
have_nonmergeable_joinclause = true;
|
|
|
|
|
continue; /* not mergejoinable */
|
|
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
/*
|
|
|
|
|
* Check if clause has the form "outer op inner" or "inner op outer".
|
|
|
|
|
*/
|
|
|
|
|
if (!clause_sides_match_join(restrictinfo, outerrel, innerrel))
|
|
|
|
|
{
|
|
|
|
|
have_nonmergeable_joinclause = true;
|
|
|
|
|
continue; /* no good for these input relations */
|
|
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
|
|
Fix some planner issues found while investigating Kevin Grittner's report
of poorer planning in 8.3 than 8.2:
1. After pushing a constant across an outer join --- ie, given
"a LEFT JOIN b ON (a.x = b.y) WHERE a.x = 42", we can deduce that b.y is
sort of equal to 42, in the sense that we needn't fetch any b rows where
it isn't 42 --- loop to see if any additional deductions can be made.
Previous releases did that by recursing, but I had mistakenly thought that
this was no longer necessary given the EquivalenceClass machinery.
2. Allow pushing constants across outer join conditions even if the
condition is outerjoin_delayed due to a lower outer join. This is safe
as long as the condition is strict and we re-test it at the upper join.
3. Keep the outer-join clause even if we successfully push a constant
across it. This is *necessary* in the outerjoin_delayed case, but
even in the simple case, it seems better to do this to ensure that the
join search order heuristics will consider the join as reasonable to
make. Mark such a clause as having selectivity 1.0, though, since it's
not going to eliminate very many rows after application of the constant
condition.
4. Tweak have_relevant_eclass_joinclause to report that two relations
are joinable when they have vars that are equated to the same constant.
We won't actually generate any joinclause from such an EquivalenceClass,
but again it seems that in such a case it's a good idea to consider
the join as worth costing out.
5. Fix a bug in select_mergejoin_clauses that was exposed by these
changes: we have to reject candidate mergejoin clauses if either side was
equated to a constant, because we can't construct a canonical pathkey list
for such a clause. This is an implementation restriction that might be
worth fixing someday, but it doesn't seem critical to get it done for 8.3.
18 years ago
|
|
|
/*
|
|
|
|
|
* Insist that each side have a non-redundant eclass. This
|
|
|
|
|
* restriction is needed because various bits of the planner expect
|
|
|
|
|
* that each clause in a merge be associable with some pathkey in a
|
Fix some planner issues found while investigating Kevin Grittner's report
of poorer planning in 8.3 than 8.2:
1. After pushing a constant across an outer join --- ie, given
"a LEFT JOIN b ON (a.x = b.y) WHERE a.x = 42", we can deduce that b.y is
sort of equal to 42, in the sense that we needn't fetch any b rows where
it isn't 42 --- loop to see if any additional deductions can be made.
Previous releases did that by recursing, but I had mistakenly thought that
this was no longer necessary given the EquivalenceClass machinery.
2. Allow pushing constants across outer join conditions even if the
condition is outerjoin_delayed due to a lower outer join. This is safe
as long as the condition is strict and we re-test it at the upper join.
3. Keep the outer-join clause even if we successfully push a constant
across it. This is *necessary* in the outerjoin_delayed case, but
even in the simple case, it seems better to do this to ensure that the
join search order heuristics will consider the join as reasonable to
make. Mark such a clause as having selectivity 1.0, though, since it's
not going to eliminate very many rows after application of the constant
condition.
4. Tweak have_relevant_eclass_joinclause to report that two relations
are joinable when they have vars that are equated to the same constant.
We won't actually generate any joinclause from such an EquivalenceClass,
but again it seems that in such a case it's a good idea to consider
the join as worth costing out.
5. Fix a bug in select_mergejoin_clauses that was exposed by these
changes: we have to reject candidate mergejoin clauses if either side was
equated to a constant, because we can't construct a canonical pathkey list
for such a clause. This is an implementation restriction that might be
worth fixing someday, but it doesn't seem critical to get it done for 8.3.
18 years ago
|
|
|
* canonical pathkey list, but redundant eclasses can't appear in
|
|
|
|
|
* canonical sort orderings. (XXX it might be worth relaxing this,
|
|
|
|
|
* but not enough time to address it for 8.3.)
|
|
|
|
|
*/
|
|
|
|
|
update_mergeclause_eclasses(root, restrictinfo);
|
Fix some planner issues found while investigating Kevin Grittner's report
of poorer planning in 8.3 than 8.2:
1. After pushing a constant across an outer join --- ie, given
"a LEFT JOIN b ON (a.x = b.y) WHERE a.x = 42", we can deduce that b.y is
sort of equal to 42, in the sense that we needn't fetch any b rows where
it isn't 42 --- loop to see if any additional deductions can be made.
Previous releases did that by recursing, but I had mistakenly thought that
this was no longer necessary given the EquivalenceClass machinery.
2. Allow pushing constants across outer join conditions even if the
condition is outerjoin_delayed due to a lower outer join. This is safe
as long as the condition is strict and we re-test it at the upper join.
3. Keep the outer-join clause even if we successfully push a constant
across it. This is *necessary* in the outerjoin_delayed case, but
even in the simple case, it seems better to do this to ensure that the
join search order heuristics will consider the join as reasonable to
make. Mark such a clause as having selectivity 1.0, though, since it's
not going to eliminate very many rows after application of the constant
condition.
4. Tweak have_relevant_eclass_joinclause to report that two relations
are joinable when they have vars that are equated to the same constant.
We won't actually generate any joinclause from such an EquivalenceClass,
but again it seems that in such a case it's a good idea to consider
the join as worth costing out.
5. Fix a bug in select_mergejoin_clauses that was exposed by these
changes: we have to reject candidate mergejoin clauses if either side was
equated to a constant, because we can't construct a canonical pathkey list
for such a clause. This is an implementation restriction that might be
worth fixing someday, but it doesn't seem critical to get it done for 8.3.
18 years ago
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
if (EC_MUST_BE_REDUNDANT(restrictinfo->left_ec) ||
|
|
|
|
|
EC_MUST_BE_REDUNDANT(restrictinfo->right_ec))
|
|
|
|
|
{
|
|
|
|
|
have_nonmergeable_joinclause = true;
|
Fix some planner issues found while investigating Kevin Grittner's report
of poorer planning in 8.3 than 8.2:
1. After pushing a constant across an outer join --- ie, given
"a LEFT JOIN b ON (a.x = b.y) WHERE a.x = 42", we can deduce that b.y is
sort of equal to 42, in the sense that we needn't fetch any b rows where
it isn't 42 --- loop to see if any additional deductions can be made.
Previous releases did that by recursing, but I had mistakenly thought that
this was no longer necessary given the EquivalenceClass machinery.
2. Allow pushing constants across outer join conditions even if the
condition is outerjoin_delayed due to a lower outer join. This is safe
as long as the condition is strict and we re-test it at the upper join.
3. Keep the outer-join clause even if we successfully push a constant
across it. This is *necessary* in the outerjoin_delayed case, but
even in the simple case, it seems better to do this to ensure that the
join search order heuristics will consider the join as reasonable to
make. Mark such a clause as having selectivity 1.0, though, since it's
not going to eliminate very many rows after application of the constant
condition.
4. Tweak have_relevant_eclass_joinclause to report that two relations
are joinable when they have vars that are equated to the same constant.
We won't actually generate any joinclause from such an EquivalenceClass,
but again it seems that in such a case it's a good idea to consider
the join as worth costing out.
5. Fix a bug in select_mergejoin_clauses that was exposed by these
changes: we have to reject candidate mergejoin clauses if either side was
equated to a constant, because we can't construct a canonical pathkey list
for such a clause. This is an implementation restriction that might be
worth fixing someday, but it doesn't seem critical to get it done for 8.3.
18 years ago
|
|
|
continue; /* can't handle redundant eclasses */
|
|
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
result_list = lappend(result_list, restrictinfo);
|
|
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
/*
|
|
|
|
|
* Report whether mergejoin is allowed (see comment at top of function).
|
|
|
|
|
*/
|
|
|
|
|
switch (jointype)
|
|
|
|
|
{
|
|
|
|
|
case JOIN_RIGHT:
|
|
|
|
|
case JOIN_RIGHT_ANTI:
|
|
|
|
|
case JOIN_FULL:
|
|
|
|
|
*mergejoin_allowed = !have_nonmergeable_joinclause;
|
|
|
|
|
break;
|
|
|
|
|
default:
|
|
|
|
|
*mergejoin_allowed = true;
|
|
|
|
|
break;
|
|
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
return result_list;
|
|
|
|
|
}
|
