The topic of turning EXPLAIN's BUFFERS option on with the ANALYZE option
has come up a few times over the past few years. In many ways, doing this
seems like a good idea as it may be more obvious to users why a given
query is running more slowly than they might expect. Also, from my own
(David's) personal experience, I've seen users posting to the mailing
lists with two identical plans, one slow and one fast asking why their
query is sometimes slow. In many cases, this is due to additional reads.
Having BUFFERS on by default may help reduce some of these questions, and
if not, make it more obvious to the user before they post, or save a
round-trip to the mailing list when additional I/O effort is the cause of
the slowness.
The general consensus is that we want BUFFERS on by default with
ANALYZE. However, there were more than zero concerns raised with doing
so. The primary reason against is the additional verbosity, making it
harder to read large plans. Another concern was that buffer information
isn't always useful so may not make sense to have it on by default.
It's currently December, so let's commit this to see if anyone comes
forward with a strong objection against making this change. We have over
half a year remaining in the v18 cycle where we could still easily consider
reverting this if someone were to come forward with a convincing enough
reason as to why doing this is a bad idea.
There were two patches independently submitted to achieve this goal, one
by me and the other by Guillaume. This commit is a mix of both of these
patches with some additional work done by me to adjust various
additional places in the documentation which include EXPLAIN ANALYZE
output.
Author: Guillaume Lelarge, David Rowley
Reviewed-by: Robert Haas, Greg Sabino Mullane, Michael Christofides
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/CANNMO++W7MM8T0KyXN3ZheXXt-uLVM3aEtZd+WNfZ=obxffUiA@mail.gmail.com
This test case turns out to depend on the assumption that a non-Var
subquery output that's underneath an outer join will always get
wrapped in a PlaceHolderVar. But that behavior causes performance
regressions in some cases compared to what happened before v16.
The next commit will avoid inserting a PHV in the same cases where
pre-v16 did, and that causes get_memoized_path to not detect that
a memoize plan could be used.
Commit this separately, in hopes that we can restore the test after
making get_memoized_path smarter. (It's failing to find memoize
plans in adjacent cases where no PHV was ever inserted, so there
is definitely room for improvement there.)
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/CAG1ps1xvnTZceKK24OUfMKLPvDP2vjT-d+F2AOCWbw_v3KeEgg@mail.gmail.com
If we intend to generate a Memoize node on top of a path, we need
cache keys of some sort. Currently we search for the cache keys in
the parameterized clauses of the path as well as the lateral_vars of
its parent. However, it turns out that this is not sufficient because
there might be lateral references derived from PlaceHolderVars, which
we fail to take into consideration.
This oversight can cause us to miss opportunities to utilize the
Memoize node. Moreover, in some plans, failing to recognize all the
cache keys could result in performance regressions. This is because
without identifying all the cache keys, we would need to purge the
entire cache every time we get a new outer tuple during execution.
This patch fixes this issue by extracting lateral Vars from within
PlaceHolderVars and subsequently including them in the cache keys.
In passing, this patch also includes a comment clarifying that Memoize
nodes are currently not added on top of join relation paths. This
explains why this patch only considers PlaceHolderVars that are due to
be evaluated at baserels.
Author: Richard Guo
Reviewed-by: Tom Lane, David Rowley, Andrei Lepikhov
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/CAMbWs48jLxn0pAPZpJ50EThZ569Xrw+=4Ac3QvkpQvNszbeoNg@mail.gmail.com
For pass-by-reference types, the code added in 0b053e78b, which aimed to
resolve a memory leak, was overly aggressive in resetting the per-tuple
memory context which could result in pfree'd memory being accessed
resulting in failing to find previously cached results in the hash
table.
What was happening was prepare_probe_slot() was switching to the
per-tuple memory context and calling ExecEvalExpr(). ExecEvalExpr() may
have required a memory allocation. Both MemoizeHash_hash() and
MemoizeHash_equal() were aggressively resetting the per-tuple context
and after determining the hash value, the context would have gotten reset
before MemoizeHash_equal() was called. This could have resulted in
MemoizeHash_equal() looking at pfree'd memory.
This is less likely to have caused issues on a production build as some
other allocation would have had to have reused the pfree'd memory to
overwrite it. Otherwise, the original contents would have been intact.
However, this clearly caused issues on MEMORY_CONTEXT_CHECKING builds.
Author: Tender Wang, Andrei Lepikhov
Reported-by: Tender Wang (using SQLancer)
Reviewed-by: Andrei Lepikhov, Richard Guo, David Rowley
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/CAHewXNnT6N6UJkya0z-jLFzVxcwGfeRQSfhiwA+NyLg-x8iGew@mail.gmail.com
Backpatch-through: 14, where Memoize was added
Both drongo and fairywren seem not to like a new regression test added
by 2cca95e17. These machines show a different number of actual rows in
the EXPLAIN ANALYZE output. Since the number of actual rows is divided by
the number of loops, I suspect this might be due to some platform
dependant rounding behavior as the total row count is 5 and the number of
loops is 2. drongo and fairywren seem to be calculating that 5.0 / 2.0 is
3, whereas most other machines think the answer is 2.
Here we tweak the test query's WHERE clause so it's 4.0 / 2.0 instead.
There shouldn't be too much wiggle room for platform dependant-behavior to
be a factor with those numbers.
Reported-by: Tom Lane
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/1035225.1706301718%40sss.pgh.pa.us
It was possible in cases where we had a LATERAL joined subquery that
when the same Var is mentioned in both the lateral references and in the
outer Vars of the scan clauses that the given Var wouldn't be assigned
to the same NestLoopParam.
This could cause issues in Memoize as the cache key would reference the
Var for the scan clauses but when the parameter for the lateral references
changed some code in Memoize would see that some other parameter had
changed that's not part of the cache key and end up purging the entire
cache as a result, thinking the cache had become stale. This could
result in a Nested Loop -> Memoize plan being quite inefficient as, in
the worst case, the cache purging could result in never getting a cache
hit. In no cases could this problem lead to incorrect query results.
Here we switch the order of operations so that we create NestLoopParam
for the lateral references first before doing replace_nestloop_params().
replace_nestloop_params() will find and reuse the existing NestLoopParam
in cases where the Var exists in both locations.
Author: Richard Guo
Reviewed-by: Tom Lane, David Rowley
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/CAMbWs48XHJEK1Q1CzAQ7L9sTANTs9W1cepXu8%3DKc0quUL%2Btg4Q%40mail.gmail.com
create_append_path() would only apply get_baserel_parampathinfo
when the path is for a partitioned table, but it's also potentially
useful for paths for UNION ALL appendrels. Specifically, that
supports building a Memoize path atop this one.
While we're in the vicinity, delete some dead code in
create_merge_append_plan(): there's no need for it to support
parameterized MergeAppend paths, and it doesn't look like that
is going to change anytime soon. It'll be easy enough to undo
this when/if it becomes useful.
Richard Guo
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/CAMbWs4_ABSu4PWG2rE1q10tJugEXHWgru3U8dAgkoFvgrb6aEA@mail.gmail.com
Most of these calls were to generate some random data. These can be
replaced by appropriately adapted sha256() calls. To keep the diff
smaller, we wrap this into a helper function that produces the same
output format and length as the md5() call.
This will eventually allow these tests to pass in OpenSSL FIPS mode
(which does not allow MD5 use).
Similar work for other test suites will follow later.
Reviewed-by: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Discussion: https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/flat/dbbd927f-ef1f-c9a1-4ec6-c759778ac852@enterprisedb.com
b762fed64 recently changed this test to prevent subquery pullup to allow
us to test Memoize with lateral_vars. As pointed out by Tom Lane, OFFSET
0 is our standard way of preventing subquery pullups, so do it that way
instead.
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/2144818.1674517061@sss.pgh.pa.us
Backpatch-through: 14, same as b762fed64
The test in question was meant to be testing Memoize to ensure it worked
correctly when the inner side of the join contained lateral vars, however,
nothing in the lateral subquery stopped it from being pulled up into the
main query, so the planner did that, and that meant no more lateral vars.
Here we add a simple ORDER BY to stop the planner from being able to
pullup the lateral subquery.
Author: Richard Guo
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/CAMbWs4_LHJaN4L-tXpKMiPFnsCJWU1P8Xh59o0W7AA6UN99=cQ@mail.gmail.com
Backpatch-through: 14, where Memoize was added.
A couple of places weren't up to speed for this. By sheer good
luck, we didn't fail but just selected a non-memoized join plan,
at least in the test case we have. Nonetheless, it's a bug,
and I'm not quite sure that it couldn't have worse consequences
in other examples. So back-patch to v14 where Memoize came in.
Richard Guo
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/CAMbWs48GkNom272sfp0-WeD6_0HSR19BJ4H1c9ZKSfbVnJsvRg@mail.gmail.com
Double the default setting for hash_mem_multiplier, from 1.0 to 2.0.
This setting makes hash-based executor nodes use twice the usual
work_mem limit.
The PostgreSQL 15 release notes should have a compatibility note about
this change.
Author: Peter Geoghegan <pg@bowt.ie>
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/CAH2-Wzndc_ROk6CY-bC6p9O53q974Y0Ey4WX8jcPbuTZYM4Q3A@mail.gmail.com
It's possible that a subplan below a Memoize node contains a parameter
from above the Memoize node. If this parameter changes then cache entries
may become out-dated due to the new parameter value.
Previously Memoize was mistakenly not aware of this. We fix this here by
flushing the cache whenever a parameter that's not part of the cache
key changes.
Bug: #17213
Reported by: Elvis Pranskevichus
Author: David Rowley
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/17213-988ed34b225a2862@postgresql.org
Backpatch-through: 14, where Memoize was added
It's possible that a subplan below a Memoize node contains a parameter
from above the Memoize node. If this parameter changes then cache entries
may become out-dated due to the new parameter value.
Previously Memoize was mistakenly not aware of this. We fix this here by
flushing the cache whenever a parameter that's not part of the cache
key changes.
Bug: #17213
Reported by: Elvis Pranskevichus
Author: David Rowley
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/17213-988ed34b225a2862@postgresql.org
Backpatch-through: 14, where Memoize was added
Memoize would always use the hash equality operator for the cache key
types to determine if the current set of parameters were the same as some
previously cached set. Certain types such as floating points where -0.0
and +0.0 differ in their binary representation but are classed as equal by
the hash equality operator may cause problems as unless the join uses the
same operator it's possible that whichever join operator is being used
would be able to distinguish the two values. In which case we may
accidentally return in the incorrect rows out of the cache.
To fix this here we add a binary mode to Memoize to allow it to the
current set of parameters to previously cached values by comparing
bit-by-bit rather than logically using the hash equality operator. This
binary mode is always used for LATERAL joins and it's used for normal
joins when any of the join operators are not hashable.
Reported-by: Tom Lane
Author: David Rowley
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/3004308.1632952496@sss.pgh.pa.us
Backpatch-through: 14, where Memoize was added
"Result Cache" was never a great name for this node, but nobody managed
to come up with another name that anyone liked enough. That was until
David Johnston mentioned "Node Memoization", which Tom Lane revised to
just "Memoize". People seem to like "Memoize", so let's do the rename.
Reviewed-by: Justin Pryzby
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/20210708165145.GG1176@momjian.us
Backpatch-through: 14, where Result Cache was introduced
2021-07-14 12:43:58 +12:00
Renamed from src/test/regress/sql/resultcache.sql (Browse further)
