Commits 4ea03f3f4 et al arranged to filter out row counts in parallel
plans, because those are dependent on the number of workers actually
obtained. Somehow I missed that the 'Rows Removed by Filter' counts
can also vary, so fix that too. Per buildfarm.
This seems worth a last-minute patch because unreliable regression
tests are a serious pain in the rear for packagers.
Like the previous patch, back-patch to v11 where this test was
introduced.
This file had a very weird mix of tests that did "set plan_cache_mode =
force_generic_plan" to get a generic plan, and tests that relied on
using five dummy executions of a prepared statement. Converting them
all to rely on plan_cache_mode is more consistent and shaves off a
noticeable fraction of the test script's runtime.
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/11952.1569536725@sss.pgh.pa.us
This test already knew that, to get stable test output, it had to hide
"loops" counts in EXPLAIN ANALYZE results. But that's not nearly enough:
if we get a smaller number of workers than we planned for, then the
"Workers Launched" number will change, and so will all the rows and loops
counts up to the Gather node. This has resulted in repeated failures in
the buildfarm, so adjust the test to filter out all these counts.
(Really, we wouldn't bother with EXPLAIN ANALYZE at all here, except
that currently the only way to verify that executor-time pruning has
happened is to look for '(never executed)' annotations. Those are
stable and needn't be filtered out.)
Back-patch to v11 where the test was introduced.
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/11952.1569536725@sss.pgh.pa.us
We were applying constraint exclusion on the partition constraint when
generating pruning steps for a clause, but only for the rather
restricted situation of them being boolean OR operators; however it is
possible to have differently shaped clauses that also benefit from
constraint exclusion. This applies particularly to the default
partition since their constraints are in essence a long list of OR'ed
subclauses ... but it applies to other cases too. So in certain cases
we're scanning partitions that we don't need to.
Remove the specialized code in OR clauses, and add a generally
applicable test of the clause refuting the partition constraint; mark
the whole pruning operation as contradictory if it hits.
This has the unwanted side-effect of testing some (most? all?)
constraints more than once if constraint_exclusion=on. That seems
unavoidable as far as I can tell without some additional work, but
that's not the recommended setting for that parameter anyway.
However, because this imposes additional processing cost for all
queries using partitioned tables, I decided not to backpatch this
change.
Author: Amit Langote, Yuzuko Hosoya, Álvaro Herrera
Reviewers: Shawn Wang, Thibaut Madeleine, Yoshikazu Imai, Kyotaro
Horiguchi; they were also uncredited reviewers for commit 489247b0e6.
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/9bb31dfe-b0d0-53f3-3ea6-e64b811424cf@lab.ntt.co.jp
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
match_clause_to_partition_key incorrectly would return
PARTCLAUSE_UNSUPPORTED if a bool qual could not be matched to the current
partition key. This was a problem, as it causes the calling function to
discard the qual and not try to match it to any other partition key. If
there was another partition key which did match this qual, then the qual
would not be checked again and we could fail to prune some partitions.
The worst this could do was to cause partitions not to be pruned when they
could have been, so there was no danger of incorrect query results here.
Fix this by changing match_boolean_partition_clause to have it return a
PartClauseMatchStatus rather than a boolean value. This allows it to
communicate if the qual is unsupported or if it just does not match this
particular partition key, previously these two cases were treated the
same. Now, if match_clause_to_partition_key is unable to match the qual
to any other qual type then we can simply return the value from the
match_boolean_partition_clause call so that the calling function properly
treats the qual as either unmatched or unsupported.
Reported-by: Rares Salcudean
Reviewed-by: Amit Langote
Backpatch-through: 11 where partition pruning was introduced
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/CAHp_FN2xwEznH6oyS0hNTuUUZKp5PvegcVv=Co6nBXJ+mC7Y5w@mail.gmail.com
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
gen_prune_steps_from_opexps's notion of how to do this was overly
complicated and underly correct.
Per discussion of a report from Alan Jackson (though this fixes only one
aspect of that problem). Back-patch to v11 where this code came in.
Amit Langote
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/FAD28A83-AC73-489E-A058-2681FA31D648@tvsquared.com
Cross-type comparison operators in a btree or hash opclass might be
only stable not immutable (this is true of timestamp vs. timestamptz
for example). partprune.c ignored this possibility and would perform
plan-time pruning with them anyway, possibly leading to wrong answers
if the environment changed between planning and execution.
To fix, teach gen_partprune_steps() to do things differently when
creating plan-time pruning steps vs. run-time pruning steps.
analyze_partkey_exprs() also needs an extra check, which is rather
annoying but now is not the time to restructure things enough to
avoid that.
While at it, simplify the logic for the plan-time case a little
by insisting that the comparison value be a Const and nothing else.
This relies on the assumption that eval_const_expressions will have
reduced any immutable expression to a Const; which is not quite
100% true, but certainly any case that comes up often enough to be
interesting should have simplification logic there.
Also improve a bunch of inadequate/obsolete/wrong comments.
Per discussion of a report from Alan Jackson (though this fixes only one
aspect of that problem). Back-patch to v11 where this code came in.
David Rowley, with some further hacking by me
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/FAD28A83-AC73-489E-A058-2681FA31D648@tvsquared.com
The interaction of these parameters was a bit confused/confusing,
and in fact v11 entirely misses the opportunity to apply partition
constraints when a partition is accessed directly (rather than
indirectly from its parent).
In HEAD, establish the principle that enable_partition_pruning controls
partition pruning and nothing else. When accessing a partition via its
parent, we do partition pruning (if enabled by enable_partition_pruning)
and then there is no need to consider partition constraints in the
constraint_exclusion logic. When accessing a partition directly, its
partition constraints are applied by the constraint_exclusion logic,
only if constraint_exclusion = on.
In v11, we can't have such a clean division of these GUCs' effects,
partly because we don't want to break compatibility too much in a
released branch, and partly because the clean coding requires
inheritance_planner to have applied partition pruning to a partitioned
target table, which it doesn't in v11. However, we can tweak things
enough to cover the missed case, which seems like a good idea since
it's potentially a performance regression from v10. This patch keeps
v11's previous behavior in which enable_partition_pruning overrides
constraint_exclusion for an inherited target table, though.
In HEAD, also teach relation_excluded_by_constraints that it's okay to use
inheritable constraints when trying to prune a traditional inheritance
tree. This might not be thought worthy of effort given that that feature
is semi-deprecated now, but we have enough infrastructure that it only
takes a couple more lines of code to do it correctly.
Amit Langote and Tom Lane
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/9813f079-f16b-61c8-9ab7-4363cab28d80@lab.ntt.co.jp
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/29069.1555970894@sss.pgh.pa.us
If we need ordered output from a scan of a partitioned table, but
the ordering matches the partition ordering, then we don't need to
use a MergeAppend to combine the pre-ordered per-partition scan
results: a plain Append will produce the same results. This
both saves useless comparison work inside the MergeAppend proper,
and allows us to start returning tuples after istarting up just
the first child node not all of them.
However, all is not peaches and cream, because if some of the
child nodes have high startup costs then there will be big
discontinuities in the tuples-returned-versus-elapsed-time curve.
The planner's cost model cannot handle that (yet, anyway).
If we model the Append's startup cost as being just the first
child's startup cost, we may drastically underestimate the cost
of fetching slightly more tuples than are available from the first
child. Since we've had bad experiences with over-optimistic choices
of "fast start" plans for ORDER BY LIMIT queries, that seems scary.
As a klugy workaround, set the startup cost estimate for an ordered
Append to be the sum of its children's startup costs (as MergeAppend
would). This doesn't really describe reality, but it's less likely
to cause a bad plan choice than an underestimated startup cost would.
In practice, the cases where we really care about this optimization
will have child plans that are IndexScans with zero startup cost,
so that the overly conservative estimate is still just zero.
David Rowley, reviewed by Julien Rouhaud and Antonin Houska
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/CAKJS1f-hAqhPLRk_RaSFTgYxd=Tz5hA7kQ2h4-DhJufQk8TGuw@mail.gmail.com
Previously, the planner created RangeTblEntry and RelOptInfo structs
for every partition of a partitioned table, even though many of them
might later be deemed uninteresting thanks to partition pruning logic.
This incurred significant overhead when there are many partitions.
Arrange to postpone creation of these data structures until after
we've processed the query enough to identify restriction quals for
the partitioned table, and then apply partition pruning before not
after creation of each partition's data structures. In this way
we need not open the partition relations at all for partitions that
the planner has no real interest in.
For queries that can be proven at plan time to access only a small
number of partitions, this patch improves the practical maximum
number of partitions from under 100 to perhaps a few thousand.
Amit Langote, reviewed at various times by Dilip Kumar, Jesper Pedersen,
Yoshikazu Imai, and David Rowley
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/9d7c5112-cb99-6a47-d3be-cf1ee6862a1d@lab.ntt.co.jp
Now that the ordering of DROP messages ought to be stable everywhere,
we should not need these kluges of hiding DETAIL output just to avoid
unstable ordering. Hiding it's not great for test coverage, so
let's undo that where possible.
In a small number of places, it's necessary to leave it in, for
example because the output might include a variable pg_temp_nnn
schema name. I also left things alone in places where the details
would depend on other regression test scripts, e.g. plpython_drop.sql.
Perhaps buildfarm experience will show this to be a bad idea,
but if so I'd like to know why.
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/E1h6eep-0001Mw-Vd@gemulon.postgresql.org
ExecFindInitialMatchingSubPlans has to update the PartitionPruneState's
subplan mapping data to account for the removal of subplans it prunes.
However, that's only necessary if run-time pruning will also occur,
so we can skip it when that won't happen, which should result in not
needing to do the remapping in many cases. (We now need it only when
some partitions are potentially startup-time prunable and others are
potentially run-time prunable, which seems like an unusual case.)
Also make some marginal performance improvements in the remapping
itself. These will mainly win if most partitions got pruned by
the startup-time pruning, which is perhaps a debatable assumption
in this context.
Also fix some bogus comments, and rearrange code to marginally
reduce space consumption in the executor's query-lifespan context.
David Rowley, reviewed by Yoshikazu Imai
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/CAKJS1f9+m6-di-zyy4B4AGn0y1B9F8UKDRigtBbNviXOkuyOpw@mail.gmail.com
In a multi-layer partitioning setup, if at plan time all the
sub-partitions are pruned but the intermediate one remains, the executor
later throws a spurious error that there's nothing to prune. That is
correct, but there's no reason to throw an error. Therefore, don't.
Reported-by: Andreas Seltenreich <seltenreich@gmx.de>
Author: David Rowley <david.rowley@2ndquadrant.com>
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/87in4h98i0.fsf@ansel.ydns.eu
Commit 1c2cb2744 added some code that tried to detect whether two
RelOptInfos were the "same" rel by pointer comparison; but it turns
out that inheritance_planner breaks that, through its shenanigans
with copying some relations forward into new subproblems. Compare
relid sets instead. Add a regression test case to exercise this
area.
Problem reported by Rushabh Lathia; diagnosis and fix by Amit Langote,
modified a bit by me.
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/CAGPqQf3anJGj65bqAQ9edDr8gF7qig6_avRgwMT9MsZ19COUPw@mail.gmail.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
In commit 84940644de, bms_add_range was added with an API to fail with
an error if an empty range was specified. This seems arbitrary and
unhelpful, so turn that case into a no-op instead. Callers that require
further verification on the arguments or result can apply them by
themselves.
This fixes the bug that partition pruning throws an API error for a case
involving the default partition of a default partition, as in the
included test case.
Reported-by: Rajkumar Raghuwanshi <rajkumar.raghuwanshi@enterprisedb.com>
Diagnosed-by: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/16590.1532622503@sss.pgh.pa.us
The original code was unable to prune partitions that could not possibly
contain NULL values, when the query specified less than all columns in a
multicolumn partition key. Reorder the if-tests so that it is, and add
more commentary and regression tests.
Reported-by: Ashutosh Bapat <ashutosh.bapat@enterprisedb.com>
Co-authored-by: Dilip Kumar <dilipbalaut@gmail.com>
Co-authored-by: Amit Langote <Langote_Amit_f8@lab.ntt.co.jp>
Co-authored-by: Álvaro Herrera <alvherre@alvh.no-ip.org>
Reviewed-by: Ashutosh Bapat <ashutosh.bapat@enterprisedb.com>
Reviewed-by: amul sul <sulamul@gmail.com>
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/CAFjFpRc7qjLUfXLVBBC_HAnx644sjTYM=qVoT3TJ840HPbsTXw@mail.gmail.com
We fail to handle polymorphic types properly when they are used as
partition keys: we were unnecessarily adding a RelabelType node on top,
which confuses code examining the nodes. In particular, this makes
predtest.c-based partition pruning not to work, and ruleutils.c to emit
expressions that are uglier than needed. Fix it by not adding RelabelType
when not needed.
In master/11 the new pruning code is separate so it doesn't suffer from
this problem, since we already fixed it (in essentially the same way) in
e5dcbb88a1, which also added a few tests; back-patch those tests to
pg10 also. But since UPDATE/DELETE still uses predtest.c in pg11, this
change improves partitioning for those cases too. Add tests for this.
The ruleutils.c behavior change is relevant in pg11/master too.
Co-authored-by: Amit Langote <Langote_Amit_f8@lab.ntt.co.jp>
Co-authored-by: Álvaro Herrera <alvherre@alvh.no-ip.org>
Reviewed-by: Álvaro Herrera <alvherre@alvh.no-ip.org>
Reviewed-by: Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com>
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/54745d13-7ed4-54ac-97d8-ea1eec95ae25@lab.ntt.co.jp
Since their introduction, partition trees have been a bit lossy
regarding temporary relations. Inheritance trees respect the following
patterns:
1) a child relation can be temporary if the parent is permanent.
2) a child relation can be temporary if the parent is temporary.
3) a child relation cannot be permanent if the parent is temporary.
4) The use of temporary relations also imply that when both parent and
child need to be from the same sessions.
Partitions share many similar patterns with inheritance, however the
handling of the partition bounds make the situation a bit tricky for
case 1) as the partition code bases a lot of its lookup code upon
PartitionDesc which does not really look after relpersistence. This
causes for example a temporary partition created by session A to be
visible by another session B, preventing this session B to create an
extra partition which overlaps with the temporary one created by A with
a non-intuitive error message. There could be use-cases where mixing
permanent partitioned tables with temporary partitions make sense, but
that would be a new feature. Partitions respect 2), 3) and 4) already.
It is a bit depressing to see those error checks happening in
MergeAttributes() whose purpose is different, but that's left as future
refactoring work.
Back-patch down to 10, which is where partitioning has been introduced,
except that default partitions do not apply there. Documentation also
includes limitations related to the use of temporary tables with
partition trees.
Reported-by: David Rowley
Author: Amit Langote, Michael Paquier
Reviewed-by: Ashutosh Bapat, Amit Langote, Michael Paquier
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/CAKJS1f94Ojk0og9GMkRHGt8wHTW=ijq5KzJKuoBoqWLwSVwGmw@mail.gmail.com
The previous coding just ignored pruning constraints that compare a
partition key to a null-valued expression. This is silly, since really
what we can do there is conclude that all partitions are rejected: the
pruning operator is known strict so the comparison must always fail.
This also fixes the logic to not ignore constisnull for a Const comparison
value. That's probably an unreachable case, since the planner would
normally have simplified away a strict operator with a constant-null input.
But this code has no business assuming that.
David Rowley, per a gripe from me
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/26279.1528670981@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
match_clause_to_partition_key failed to consider COERCION_PATH_ARRAYCOERCE
cases in scalar-op-array expressions, so it was possible to crash the
server easily. To handle this case properly (ie. prune partitions) we
would need to run a bit of executor code during planning. Maybe it can
be improved, but for now let's just not crash. Add a test case that
used to trigger the crash.
Author: Michaël Paquier
match_clause_to_partition_key failed to indicate that operators that
don't have a commutator in a btree opclass are unsupported. It is
possible for this to cause a crash later if such an operator is used in
a scalar-op-array expression. Add a test case that used to the crash.
Author: Amit Langote
One caller of gen_partprune_steps_internal in
match_clause_to_partition_key was too optimistic about the former never
returning an empty step list. Rid it of its innocence. (Having fixed
the bug above, I no longer know how to exploit this, so no test case for
it, but it remained a bug.) Revise code flow a little bit, for
succintness.
Author: Álvaro Herrera
Reported-by: Marina Polyakova
Reviewed-by: Michaël Paquier
Reviewed-by: Amit Langote
Reviewed-by: Álvaro Herrera
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/ff8f9bfa485ff961d6bb43e54120485b@postgrespro.ru
This controls both plan-time and execution-time new-style partition
pruning. While finer-grain control is possible (maybe using an enum GUC
instead of boolean), there doesn't seem to be much need for that.
This new parameter controls partition pruning for all queries:
trivially, SELECT queries that affect partitioned tables are naturally
under its control since they are using the new technology. However,
while UPDATE/DELETE queries do not use the new code, we make the new GUC
control their behavior also (stealing control from
constraint_exclusion), because it is more natural, and it leads to a
more natural transition to the future in which those queries will also
use the new pruning code.
Constraint exclusion still controls pruning for regular inheritance
situations (those not involving partitioned tables).
Author: David Rowley
Review: Amit Langote, Ashutosh Bapat, Justin Pryzby, David G. Johnston
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/CAKJS1f_0HwsxJG9m+nzU+CizxSdGtfe6iF_ykPYBiYft302DCw@mail.gmail.com
5c067521 erroneously had coded bms_prev_member assuming that a bitmapword
would always hold 32 bits and started it's search on what it thought was the
highest 8-bits of the word. This was not the case if bitmapwords were 64
bits.
In passing add a test to exercise this function a little. Previously there was
no coverage at all.
David Rowly
Amit Langote reported that partition prune was unable to work with
arrays, enums, etc, which led him to research the appropriate way to
match query clauses to partition keys: instead of searching for an exact
match of the expression's type, it is better to rely on the fact that
the expression qual has already been resolved to a specific operator,
and that the partition key is linked to a specific operator family.
With that info, it's possible to figure out the strategy and comparison
function to use for the pruning clause in a manner that works reliably
for pseudo-types also.
Include new test cases that demonstrate pruning where pseudotypes are
involved.
Author: Amit Langote, Álvaro Herrera
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/2b02f1e9-9812-9c41-972d-517bdc0f815d@lab.ntt.co.jp
coverage report indicated that mark_invalid_subplans_as_finished() and
nearby code was not getting exercised by any tests. Add a new one which
has execution-time Params rather than only external Params to fix this.
In passing, David noticed that ab_q6 tests were not actually required to
have a generic plan. The tests were testing exec Params not external
Params, so there was no need for the PREPARE. Remove the PREPARE,
making these plain queries. (The new queries are called from
explain_parallel_append, which may be unnecessary since they don't
actually have a Parallel Append node, just an Append. But it doesn't
seem to hurt anything, either.)
Author: David Rowley
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/CAKJS1f--hopb6JBSDY4wiXTS3ZcDp-wparXjTQ1nzNdBa04Fog@mail.gmail.com
This reverts commit 4d0f6d3f20 ("Attempt to stabilize partition_prune
test output (2)"), and attempts to stabilize the test by using string
replacement to hide any loop count difference in parallel nodes.
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/4475.1523628300@sss.pgh.pa.us
This custom opclass was already in use in other tests -- defined
independently in every such file. Move the definition to the earliest
test that uses it, and keep it around so that later tests can reuse it.
Use it in the tests for pruning of hash partitioning, and since this
makes the second expected file unnecessary, put those tests back in
partition_prune.sql whence they sprang.
Author: Amit Langote
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/CA%2BTgmoZ0D5kJbt8eKXtvVdvTcGGWn6ehWCRSZbWytD-uzH92mQ%40mail.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
The tests added as part of 9fdb675fc5 yield differing results
depending on endianess, causing buildfarm failures. As the differences
are expected, split the hash partitioning tests into a different file
and maintain alternative output. The separate file is so the amount of
duplicated output is reduced.
David produced the alternative output without a machine to test on, so
it's possible this'll require a buildfarm cycle or two to get right.
Author: David Rowley
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/CAKJS1f-6f4c2Qhuipe-GY7BKmFd0FMBobRnLS7hVCoAmTszsBg@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
Commit b08df9cab left things rather poorly documented as far as the
exact semantics of "clause_is_check" mode went. Also, that mode did
not really work correctly for predicate_refuted_by; although given the
lack of specification as to what it should do, as well as the lack
of any actual use-case, that's perhaps not surprising.
Rename "clause_is_check" to "weak" proof mode, and provide specifications
for what it should do. I defined weak refutation as meaning "truth of A
implies non-truth of B", which makes it possible to use the mode in the
part of relation_excluded_by_constraints that checks for mutually
contradictory WHERE clauses. Fix up several places that did things wrong
for that definition. (As far as I can see, these errors would only lead
to failure-to-prove, not incorrect claims of proof, making them not
serious bugs even aside from the fact that v10 contains no use of this
mode. So there seems no need for back-patching.)
In addition, teach predicate_refuted_by_recurse that it can use
predicate_implied_by_recurse after all when processing a strong NOT-clause,
so long as it asks for the correct proof strength. This is an optimization
that could have been included in commit b08df9cab, but wasn't.
Also, simplify and generalize the logic that checks for whether nullness of
the argument of IS [NOT] NULL would force overall nullness of the predicate
or clause. (This results in a change in the partition_prune test's output,
as it is now able to prune an all-nulls partition that it did not recognize
before.)
In passing, in PartConstraintImpliedByRelConstraint, remove bogus
conversion of the constraint list to explicit-AND form and then right back
again; that accomplished nothing except forcing a useless extra level of
recursion inside predicate_implied_by.
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/5983.1520487191@sss.pgh.pa.us
Currently, partition pruning happens via constraint exclusion, but
there are pending places to replace that with a different and
hopefully faster mechanism. To be sure that we don't change behavior
without realizing it, add extensive test coverage.
Note that not all of these behaviors are optimal; in some cases,
partitions are not pruned even though it would be safe to do so.
These tests therefore serve to memorialize the current state rather
than the ideal state. Patches that improve things can update the test
results as appropriate.
Amit Langote, adjusted by me. Review and testing of the larger patch
set of which this is a part by Ashutosh Bapat, David Rowley, Dilip
Kumar, Jesper Pedersen, Rajkumar Raghuwanshi, Beena Emerson, Amul Sul,
and Kyotaro Horiguchi.
Discussion: http://postgr.es/m/098b9c71-1915-1a2a-8d52-1a7a50ce79e8@lab.ntt.co.jp
Tom Lane