open-dsi
/
postgres
mirror of https://github.com/postgres/postgres
1
0
Fork 0
Code Issues Packages Projects Releases Wiki Activity

Make GROUP BY work properly for datatypes that only support hashing and not

Browse Source 
sorting.  The infrastructure for this was all in place already; it's only
necessary to fix the planner to not assume that sorting is always an available
option.
REL8_5_ALPHA1_BRANCH
Tom Lane 17 years ago
parent 82a1f09953
commit ec73b56a31
3 changed files with 112 additions and 58 deletions
Show all changes Ignore whitespace when comparing lines Ignore changes in amount of whitespace Ignore changes in whitespace at EOL
Show Stats Download Patch File Download Diff File
  1. 5
      src/backend/optimizer/plan/planmain.c
  2. 157
      src/backend/optimizer/plan/planner.c
  3. 8
      src/backend/parser/parse_clause.c

5
src/backend/optimizer/plan/planmain.c
Unescape View File

@ -14,7 +14,7 @@
*
*
* IDENTIFICATION
* $PostgreSQL: pgsql/src/backend/optimizer/plan/planmain.c,v 1.107 2008/07/31 22:47:56 tgl Exp $
* $PostgreSQL: pgsql/src/backend/optimizer/plan/planmain.c,v 1.108 2008/08/03 19:10:52 tgl Exp $
*
*-------------------------------------------------------------------------
*/
@ -288,8 +288,7 @@ query_planner(PlannerInfo *root, List *tlist,
* levels of sort --- and, therefore, certainly need to read all the
* tuples --- unless ORDER BY is a subset of GROUP BY.
*/
if (root->group_pathkeys && root->sort_pathkeys &&
!pathkeys_contained_in(root->sort_pathkeys, root->group_pathkeys))
if (!pathkeys_contained_in(root->sort_pathkeys, root->group_pathkeys))
tuple_fraction = 0.0;
}
else if (parse->hasAggs || root->hasHavingQual)

157
src/backend/optimizer/plan/planner.c
Unescape View File

@ -8,7 +8,7 @@
*
*
* IDENTIFICATION
* $PostgreSQL: pgsql/src/backend/optimizer/plan/planner.c,v 1.236 2008/08/02 21:32:00 tgl Exp $
* $PostgreSQL: pgsql/src/backend/optimizer/plan/planner.c,v 1.237 2008/08/03 19:10:52 tgl Exp $
*
*-------------------------------------------------------------------------
*/
@ -69,11 +69,12 @@ static double preprocess_limit(PlannerInfo *root,
int64 *offset_est, int64 *count_est);
static void preprocess_groupclause(PlannerInfo *root);
static Oid *extract_grouping_ops(List *groupClause);
static bool grouping_is_sortable(List *groupClause);
static bool grouping_is_hashable(List *groupClause);
static bool choose_hashed_grouping(PlannerInfo *root,
double tuple_fraction, double limit_tuples,
Path *cheapest_path, Path *sorted_path,
Oid *groupOperators, double dNumGroups,
AggClauseCounts *agg_counts);
double dNumGroups, AggClauseCounts *agg_counts);
static List *make_subplanTargetList(PlannerInfo *root, List *tlist,
AttrNumber **groupColIdx, bool *need_tlist_eval);
static void locate_grouping_columns(PlannerInfo *root,
@ -839,7 +840,6 @@ grouping_planner(PlannerInfo *root, double tuple_fraction)
List *sub_tlist;
List *group_pathkeys;
AttrNumber *groupColIdx = NULL;
Oid *groupOperators = NULL;
bool need_tlist_eval = true;
QualCost tlist_cost;
Path *cheapest_path;
@ -877,11 +877,15 @@ grouping_planner(PlannerInfo *root, double tuple_fraction)
* DISTINCT and ORDER BY requirements. This should be changed
* someday, but DISTINCT ON is a bit of a problem ...
*/
root->group_pathkeys =
make_pathkeys_for_sortclauses(root,
parse->groupClause,
tlist,
false);
if (parse->groupClause && grouping_is_sortable(parse->groupClause))
root->group_pathkeys =
make_pathkeys_for_sortclauses(root,
parse->groupClause,
tlist,
false);
else
root->group_pathkeys = NIL;
if (list_length(parse->distinctClause) > list_length(parse->sortClause))
root->sort_pathkeys =
make_pathkeys_for_sortclauses(root,
@ -915,12 +919,12 @@ grouping_planner(PlannerInfo *root, double tuple_fraction)
/*
* Figure out whether we need a sorted result from query_planner.
*
* If we have a GROUP BY clause, then we want a result sorted properly
* for grouping. Otherwise, if there is an ORDER BY clause, we want
* to sort by the ORDER BY clause. (Note: if we have both, and ORDER
* BY is a superset of GROUP BY, it would be tempting to request sort
* by ORDER BY --- but that might just leave us failing to exploit an
* available sort order at all. Needs more thought...)
* If we have a sortable GROUP BY clause, then we want a result sorted
* properly for grouping. Otherwise, if there is an ORDER BY clause,
* we want to sort by the ORDER BY clause. (Note: if we have both, and
* ORDER BY is a superset of GROUP BY, it would be tempting to request
* sort by ORDER BY --- but that might just leave us failing to
* exploit an available sort order at all. Needs more thought...)
*/
if (root->group_pathkeys)
root->query_pathkeys = root->group_pathkeys;
@ -942,17 +946,39 @@ grouping_planner(PlannerInfo *root, double tuple_fraction)
sort_pathkeys = root->sort_pathkeys;
/*
* If grouping, extract the grouping operators and decide whether we
* want to use hashed grouping.
* If grouping, decide whether to use sorted or hashed grouping.
*/
if (parse->groupClause)
{
groupOperators = extract_grouping_ops(parse->groupClause);
use_hashed_grouping =
choose_hashed_grouping(root, tuple_fraction, limit_tuples,
cheapest_path, sorted_path,
groupOperators, dNumGroups,
&agg_counts);
bool can_hash;
bool can_sort;
/*
* Executor doesn't support hashed aggregation with DISTINCT
* aggregates. (Doing so would imply storing *all* the input
* values in the hash table, which seems like a certain loser.)
*/
can_hash = (agg_counts.numDistinctAggs == 0 &&
grouping_is_hashable(parse->groupClause));
can_sort = grouping_is_sortable(parse->groupClause);
if (can_hash && can_sort)
{
/* we have a meaningful choice to make ... */
use_hashed_grouping =
choose_hashed_grouping(root,
tuple_fraction, limit_tuples,
cheapest_path, sorted_path,
dNumGroups, &agg_counts);
}
else if (can_hash)
use_hashed_grouping = true;
else if (can_sort)
use_hashed_grouping = false;
else
ereport(ERROR,
(errcode(ERRCODE_FEATURE_NOT_SUPPORTED),
errmsg("could not implement GROUP BY"),
errdetail("Some of the datatypes only support hashing, while others only support sorting.")));
/* Also convert # groups to long int --- but 'ware overflow! */
numGroups = (long) Min(dNumGroups, (double) LONG_MAX);
@ -1088,7 +1114,7 @@ grouping_planner(PlannerInfo *root, double tuple_fraction)
AGG_HASHED,
numGroupCols,
groupColIdx,
groupOperators,
extract_grouping_ops(parse->groupClause),
numGroups,
agg_counts.numAggs,
result_plan);
@ -1131,7 +1157,7 @@ grouping_planner(PlannerInfo *root, double tuple_fraction)
aggstrategy,
numGroupCols,
groupColIdx,
groupOperators,
extract_grouping_ops(parse->groupClause),
numGroups,
agg_counts.numAggs,
result_plan);
@ -1160,7 +1186,7 @@ grouping_planner(PlannerInfo *root, double tuple_fraction)
(List *) parse->havingQual,
numGroupCols,
groupColIdx,
groupOperators,
extract_grouping_ops(parse->groupClause),
dNumGroups,
result_plan);
/* The Group node won't change sort ordering */
@ -1495,6 +1521,9 @@ preprocess_limit(PlannerInfo *root, double tuple_fraction,
* GROUP BY elements, which could match the sort ordering of other
* possible plans (eg an indexscan) and thereby reduce cost. We don't
* bother with that, though. Hashed grouping will frequently win anyway.
*
* Note: we need no comparable processing of the distinctClause because
* the parser already enforced that that matches ORDER BY.
*/
static void
preprocess_groupclause(PlannerInfo *root)
@ -1505,7 +1534,7 @@ preprocess_groupclause(PlannerInfo *root)
ListCell *sl;
ListCell *gl;
/* If no ORDER BY, nothing useful to do here anyway */
/* If no ORDER BY, nothing useful to do here */
if (parse->sortClause == NIL)
return;
@ -1546,7 +1575,8 @@ preprocess_groupclause(PlannerInfo *root)
* were able to make a complete match. In other words, we only
* rearrange the GROUP BY list if the result is that one list is a
* prefix of the other --- otherwise there's no possibility of a
* common sort.
* common sort. Also, give up if there are any non-sortable GROUP BY
* items, since then there's no hope anyway.
*/
foreach(gl, parse->groupClause)
{
@ -1556,6 +1586,8 @@ preprocess_groupclause(PlannerInfo *root)
continue; /* it matched an ORDER BY item */
if (partial_match)
return; /* give up, no common sort possible */
if (!OidIsValid(gc->sortop))
return; /* give up, GROUP BY can't be sorted */
new_groupclause = lappend(new_groupclause, gc);
}
@ -1566,7 +1598,7 @@ preprocess_groupclause(PlannerInfo *root)
/*
* extract_grouping_ops - make an array of the equality operator OIDs
* for the GROUP BY clause
* for a SortGroupClause list
*/
static Oid *
extract_grouping_ops(List *groupClause)
@ -1590,15 +1622,59 @@ extract_grouping_ops(List *groupClause)
return groupOperators;
}
/*
* grouping_is_sortable - is it possible to implement grouping list by sorting?
*
* This is easy since the parser will have included a sortop if one exists.
*/
static bool
grouping_is_sortable(List *groupClause)
{
ListCell *glitem;
foreach(glitem, groupClause)
{
SortGroupClause *groupcl = (SortGroupClause *) lfirst(glitem);
if (!OidIsValid(groupcl->sortop))
return false;
}
return true;
}
/*
* grouping_is_hashable - is it possible to implement grouping list by hashing?
*
* We assume hashing is OK if the equality operators are marked oprcanhash.
* (If there isn't actually a supporting hash function, the executor will
* complain at runtime; but this is a misdeclaration of the operator, not
* a system bug.)
*/
static bool
grouping_is_hashable(List *groupClause)
{
ListCell *glitem;
foreach(glitem, groupClause)
{
SortGroupClause *groupcl = (SortGroupClause *) lfirst(glitem);
if (!op_hashjoinable(groupcl->eqop))
return false;
}
return true;
}
/*
* choose_hashed_grouping - should we use hashed grouping?
*
* Note: this is only applied when both alternatives are actually feasible.
*/
static bool
choose_hashed_grouping(PlannerInfo *root,
double tuple_fraction, double limit_tuples,
Path *cheapest_path, Path *sorted_path,
Oid *groupOperators, double dNumGroups,
AggClauseCounts *agg_counts)
double dNumGroups, AggClauseCounts *agg_counts)
{
int numGroupCols = list_length(root->parse->groupClause);
double cheapest_path_rows;
@ -1607,27 +1683,10 @@ choose_hashed_grouping(PlannerInfo *root,
List *current_pathkeys;
Path hashed_p;
Path sorted_p;
int i;
/*
* Check can't-do-it conditions, including whether the grouping operators
* are hashjoinable. (We assume hashing is OK if they are marked
* oprcanhash. If there isn't actually a supporting hash function, the
* executor will complain at runtime.)
*
* Executor doesn't support hashed aggregation with DISTINCT aggregates.
* (Doing so would imply storing *all* the input values in the hash table,
* which seems like a certain loser.)
*/
/* Prefer sorting when enable_hashagg is off */
if (!enable_hashagg)
return false;
if (agg_counts->numDistinctAggs != 0)
return false;
for (i = 0; i < numGroupCols; i++)
{
if (!op_hashjoinable(groupOperators[i]))
return false;
}
/*
* Don't do it if it doesn't look like the hashtable will fit into

8
src/backend/parser/parse_clause.c
Unescape View File

@ -8,7 +8,7 @@
*
*
* IDENTIFICATION
* $PostgreSQL: pgsql/src/backend/parser/parse_clause.c,v 1.172 2008/08/02 21:32:00 tgl Exp $
* $PostgreSQL: pgsql/src/backend/parser/parse_clause.c,v 1.173 2008/08/03 19:10:52 tgl Exp $
*
*-------------------------------------------------------------------------
*/
@ -1351,15 +1351,11 @@ transformGroupClause(ParseState *pstate, List *grouplist,
/*
* If no match in ORDER BY, just add it to the result using
* default sort/group semantics.
*
* XXX for now, the planner requires groupClause to be sortable,
* so we have to insist on that here.
*/
if (!found)
result = addTargetToGroupList(pstate, tle,
result, *targetlist,
true, /* XXX for now */
true);
false, true);
}
return result;

Write Preview
Loading…
Cancel
Save