perform_pruning_combine_step() was not taught about the number of
partition indexes used in hash partitioning; more embarrassingly,
get_matching_hash_bounds() also had it wrong. These errors are masked
in the common case where all the partitions have the same modulus
and no partition is missing. However, with missing or unequal-size
partitions, we could erroneously prune some partitions that need
to be scanned, leading to silently wrong query answers.
While a minimal-footprint fix for this could be to export
get_partition_bound_num_indexes and make the incorrect functions use it,
I'm of the opinion that that function should never have existed in the
first place. It's not reasonable data structure design that
PartitionBoundInfoData lacks any explicit record of the length of
its indexes[] array. Perhaps that was all right when it could always
be assumed equal to ndatums, but something should have been done about
it as soon as that stopped being true. Putting in an explicit
"nindexes" field makes both partition_bounds_equal() and
partition_bounds_copy() simpler, safer, and faster than before,
and removes explicit knowledge of the number-of-partition-indexes
rules from some other places too.
This change also makes get_hash_partition_greatest_modulus obsolete.
I left that in place in case any external code uses it, but no core
code does anymore.
Per bug #16840 from Michał Albrycht. Back-patch to v11 where the
hash partitioning code came in. (In the back branches, add the new
field at the end of PartitionBoundInfoData to minimize ABI risks.)
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/16840-571a22976f829ad4@postgresql.org
When querying a partitioned table containing a default partition, we
were wrongly deciding to include it in the scan too early in the
process, failing to exclude it in some cases. If we reinterpret the
PruneStepResult.scan_default flag slightly, we can do a better job at
detecting that it can be excluded. The change is that we avoid setting
the flag for that pruning step unless the step absolutely requires the
default partition to be scanned (in contrast with the previous
arrangement, which was to set it unless the step was able to prune it).
So get_matching_partitions() must explicitly check the partition that
each returned bound value corresponds to in order to determine whether
the default one needs to be included, rather than relying on the flag
from the final step result.
Author: Yuzuko Hosoya <hosoya.yuzuko@lab.ntt.co.jp>
Reviewed-by: Amit Langote <Langote_Amit_f8@lab.ntt.co.jp>
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/00e601d4ca86$932b8bc0$b982a340$@lab.ntt.co.jp
Previously, gen_partprune_steps() always built executor pruning steps
using all suitable clauses, including those containing PARAM_EXEC
Params. This meant that the pruning steps were only completely safe
for executor run-time (scan start) pruning. To prune at executor
startup, we had to ignore the steps involving exec Params. But this
doesn't really work in general, since there may be logic changes
needed as well --- for example, pruning according to the last operator's
btree strategy is the wrong thing if we're not applying that operator.
The rules embodied in gen_partprune_steps() and its minions are
sufficiently complicated that tracking their incremental effects in
other logic seems quite impractical.
Short of a complete redesign, the only safe fix seems to be to run
gen_partprune_steps() twice, once to create executor startup pruning
steps and then again for run-time pruning steps. We can save a few
cycles however by noting during the first scan whether we rejected
any clauses because they involved exec Params --- if not, we don't
need to do the second scan.
In support of this, refactor the internal APIs in partprune.c to make
more use of passing information in the GeneratePruningStepsContext
struct, rather than as separate arguments.
This is, I hope, the last piece of our response to a bug report from
Alan Jackson. Back-patch to v11 where this code came in.
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/FAD28A83-AC73-489E-A058-2681FA31D648@tvsquared.com
The previous coding here supposed that if run-time partitioning applied to
a particular Append/MergeAppend plan, then all child plans of that node
must be members of a single partitioning hierarchy. This is totally wrong,
since an Append could be formed from a UNION ALL: we could have multiple
hierarchies sharing the same Append, or child plans that aren't part of any
hierarchy.
To fix, restructure the related plan-time and execution-time data
structures so that we can have a separate list or array for each
partitioning hierarchy. Also track subplans that are not part of any
hierarchy, and make sure they don't get pruned.
Per reports from Phil Florent and others. Back-patch to v11, since
the bug originated there.
David Rowley, with a lot of cosmetic adjustments by me; thanks also
to Amit Langote for review.
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/HE1PR03MB17068BB27404C90B5B788BCABA7B0@HE1PR03MB1706.eurprd03.prod.outlook.com
The previous coding saved pointers into the partitioned table's relcache
entry, but then closed the relcache entry, causing those pointers to
nominally become dangling. Actual trouble would be seen in the field
only if a relcache flush occurred mid-query, but that's hardly out of
the question.
While we could fix this by copying all the data in question at query
start, it seems better to just hold the relcache entry open for the
whole query.
While at it, improve the handling of support-function lookups: do that
once per query not once per pruning test. There's still something to be
desired here, in that we fail to exploit the possibility of caching data
across queries in the fn_extra fields of the relcache's FmgrInfo structs,
which could happen if we just used those structs in-place rather than
copying them. However, combining that with the possibility of per-query
lookups of cross-type comparison functions seems to require changes in the
APIs of a lot of the pruning support functions, so it's too invasive to
consider as part of this patch. A win would ensue only for complex
partition key data types (e.g. arrays), so it may not be worth the
trouble.
David Rowley and Tom Lane
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/17850.1528755844@sss.pgh.pa.us
The initial coding of the run-time-pruning feature only coped with cases
where the partition key(s) are compared to Params. That is a bit silly;
we can allow it to work with any non-Var-containing stable expression, as
long as we take special care with expressions containing PARAM_EXEC Params.
The code is hardly any longer this way, and it's considerably clearer
(IMO at least). Per gripe from Pavel Stehule.
David Rowley, whacked around a bit by me
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/CAFj8pRBjrufA3ocDm8o4LPGNye9Y+pm1b9kCwode4X04CULG3g@mail.gmail.com
There's no need to export this function, so don't. Michaël didn't
actually write the patch, but we list him as first author because with a
trivial one like this, intellectual authorship is as important (if not
more) as bit shovelling.
Author: Michaël Paquier, Amit Langote
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/c91299c4-199b-0f16-339b-a29d6d2a39ee@lab.ntt.co.jp
Instead of doing ExecInitExpr every time a Param needs to be evaluated
in run-time partition pruning, do it once during run-time pruning
set-up and cache the exprstate in PartitionPruneContext, saving a lot of
work.
Author: David Rowley
Reviewed-by: Amit Langote, Álvaro Herrera
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/CAKJS1f8-x+q-90QAPDu_okhQBV4DPEtPz8CJ=m0940GyT4DA4w@mail.gmail.com
Existing partition pruning is only able to work at plan time, for query
quals that appear in the parsed query. This is good but limiting, as
there can be parameters that appear later that can be usefully used to
further prune partitions.
This commit adds support for pruning subnodes of Append which cannot
possibly contain any matching tuples, during execution, by evaluating
Params to determine the minimum set of subnodes that can possibly match.
We support more than just simple Params in WHERE clauses. Support
additionally includes:
1. Parameterized Nested Loop Joins: The parameter from the outer side of the
join can be used to determine the minimum set of inner side partitions to
scan.
2. Initplans: Once an initplan has been executed we can then determine which
partitions match the value from the initplan.
Partition pruning is performed in two ways. When Params external to the plan
are found to match the partition key we attempt to prune away unneeded Append
subplans during the initialization of the executor. This allows us to bypass
the initialization of non-matching subplans meaning they won't appear in the
EXPLAIN or EXPLAIN ANALYZE output.
For parameters whose value is only known during the actual execution
then the pruning of these subplans must wait. Subplans which are
eliminated during this stage of pruning are still visible in the EXPLAIN
output. In order to determine if pruning has actually taken place, the
EXPLAIN ANALYZE must be viewed. If a certain Append subplan was never
executed due to the elimination of the partition then the execution
timing area will state "(never executed)". Whereas, if, for example in
the case of parameterized nested loops, the number of loops stated in
the EXPLAIN ANALYZE output for certain subplans may appear lower than
others due to the subplan having been scanned fewer times. This is due
to the list of matching subnodes having to be evaluated whenever a
parameter which was found to match the partition key changes.
This commit required some additional infrastructure that permits the
building of a data structure which is able to perform the translation of
the matching partition IDs, as returned by get_matching_partitions, into
the list index of a subpaths list, as exist in node types such as
Append, MergeAppend and ModifyTable. This allows us to translate a list
of clauses into a Bitmapset of all the subpath indexes which must be
included to satisfy the clause list.
Author: David Rowley, based on an earlier effort by Beena Emerson
Reviewers: Amit Langote, Robert Haas, Amul Sul, Rajkumar Raghuwanshi,
Jesper Pedersen
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/CAOG9ApE16ac-_VVZVvv0gePSgkg_BwYEV1NBqZFqDR2bBE0X0A@mail.gmail.com
Add a new module backend/partitioning/partprune.c, implementing a more
sophisticated algorithm for partition pruning. The new module uses each
partition's "boundinfo" for pruning instead of constraint exclusion,
based on an idea proposed by Robert Haas of a "pruning program": a list
of steps generated from the query quals which are run iteratively to
obtain a list of partitions that must be scanned in order to satisfy
those quals.
At present, this targets planner-time partition pruning, but there exist
further patches to apply partition pruning at execution time as well.
This commit also moves some definitions from include/catalog/partition.h
to a new file include/partitioning/partbounds.h, in an attempt to
rationalize partitioning related code.
Authors: Amit Langote, David Rowley, Dilip Kumar
Reviewers: Robert Haas, Kyotaro Horiguchi, Ashutosh Bapat, Jesper Pedersen.
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/098b9c71-1915-1a2a-8d52-1a7a50ce79e8@lab.ntt.co.jp
