Consistently refer to such an entry as a "statistics object", not just
"statistics" or "extended statistics". Previously we had a mismash of
terms, accompanied by utter confusion as to whether the term was
singular or plural. That's not only grating (at least to the ear of
a native English speaker) but could be outright misleading, eg in error
messages that seemed to be referring to multiple objects where only one
could be meant.
This commit fixes the code and a lot of comments (though I may have
missed a few). I also renamed two new SQL functions,
pg_get_statisticsextdef -> pg_get_statisticsobjdef
pg_statistic_ext_is_visible -> pg_statistics_obj_is_visible
to conform better with this terminology.
I have not touched the SGML docs other than fixing those function
names; the docs certainly need work but it seems like a separable task.
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/22676.1494557205@sss.pgh.pa.us
If the inner relation can be proven unique, that is it can have no more
than one matching row for any row of the outer query, then we might as
well implement the semijoin as a plain inner join, allowing substantially
more freedom to the planner. This is a form of outer join strength
reduction, but it can't be implemented in reduce_outer_joins() because
we don't have enough info about the individual relations at that stage.
Instead do it much like remove_useless_joins(): once we've built base
relations, we can make another pass over the SpecialJoinInfo list and
get rid of any entries representing reducible semijoins.
This is essentially a followon to the inner-unique patch (commit 9c7f5229a)
and makes use of the proof machinery that that patch created. We need only
minor refactoring of innerrel_is_unique's API to support this usage.
Per performance complaint from Teodor Sigaev.
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/f994fc98-389f-4a46-d1bc-c42e05cb43ed@sigaev.ru
The inner-unique patch (commit 9c7f5229a) supposed that if we're
considering a JOIN_UNIQUE_INNER join path, we can always set inner_unique
for the join, because the inner path produced by create_unique_path should
be unique relative to the outer relation. However, that's true only if
we're considering joining to the whole outer relation --- otherwise we may
be applying only some of the join quals, and so the inner path might be
non-unique from the perspective of this join. Adjust the test to only
believe that we can set inner_unique if we have the whole semijoin LHS on
the outer side.
There is more that can be done in this area, but this commit is only
intended to provide the minimal fix needed to get correct plans.
Per report from Teodor Sigaev. Thanks to David Rowley for preliminary
investigation.
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/f994fc98-389f-4a46-d1bc-c42e05cb43ed@sigaev.ru
Even though no actual tuples are ever inserted into a partitioned
table (the actual tuples are in the partitions, not the partitioned
table itself), we still need to have a ResultRelInfo for the
partitioned table, or per-statement triggers won't get fired.
Amit Langote, per a report from Rajkumar Raghuwanshi. Reviewed by me.
Discussion: http://postgr.es/m/CAKcux6%3DwYospCRY2J4XEFuVy0L41S%3Dfic7rmkbsU-GXhhSbmBg%40mail.gmail.com
is_parallel_safe() supposed that the only relevant property of a SubPlan
was the parallel safety of the referenced subplan tree. This is wrong:
the testexpr or args subtrees might contain parallel-unsafe stuff, as
demonstrated by the test case added here. However, just recursing into the
subtrees fails in a different way: we'll typically find PARAM_EXEC Params
representing the subplan's output columns in the testexpr. The previous
coding supposed that any Param must be treated as parallel-restricted, so
that a naive attempt at fixing this disabled parallel pushdown of SubPlans
altogether. We must instead determine, for any visited Param, whether it
is one that would be computed by a surrounding SubPlan node; if so, it's
safe to push down along with the SubPlan node.
We might later be able to extend this logic to cope with Params used for
correlated subplans and other cases; but that's a task for v11 or beyond.
Tom Lane and Amit Kapila
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/7064.1492022469@sss.pgh.pa.us
We were applying the use_physical_tlist optimization to all relation
scan plans, even those implemented by custom scan providers. However,
that's a bad idea for a couple of reasons. The custom provider might
be unable to provide columns that it hadn't expected to be asked for
(for example, the custom scan might depend on an index-only scan).
Even more to the point, there's no good reason to suppose that this
"optimization" is a win for a custom scan; whatever the custom provider
is doing is likely not based on simply returning physical heap tuples.
(As a counterexample, if the custom scan is an interface to a column store,
demanding all columns would be a huge loss.) If it is a win, the custom
provider could make that decision for itself and insert a suitable
pathtarget into the path, anyway.
Per discussion with Dmitry Ivanov. Back-patch to 9.5 where custom scan
support was introduced. The argument that the custom provider can adjust
the behavior by changing the pathtarget only applies to 9.6+, but on
balance it seems more likely that use_physical_tlist will hurt custom
scans than help them.
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/e29ddd30-8ef9-4da5-a50b-2bb7b8c7198d@postgrespro.ru
We'd managed to avoid doing this so far, but it seems pretty obvious
that it would be forced on us some day, and this is much the cleanest
way of approaching the open problem that parallel-unsafe subplans are
being transmitted to parallel workers. Anyway there's no space cost
due to alignment considerations, and the time cost is pretty minimal
since we're just copying the flag from the corresponding Path node.
(At least in most cases ... some of the klugier spots in createplan.c
have to work a bit harder.)
In principle we could perhaps get rid of SubPlan.parallel_safe,
but I thought it better to keep that in case there are reasons to
consider a SubPlan unsafe even when its child plan is parallel-safe.
This patch doesn't actually do anything with the new flags, but
I thought I'd commit it separately anyway.
Note: although this touches outfuncs/readfuncs, there's no need for
a catversion bump because Plan trees aren't stored on disk.
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/87tw5x4vcu.fsf@credativ.de
This extends the castNode() notation introduced by commit 5bcab1114 to
provide, in one step, extraction of a list cell's pointer and coercion to
a concrete node type. For example, "lfirst_node(Foo, lc)" is the same
as "castNode(Foo, lfirst(lc))". Almost half of the uses of castNode
that have appeared so far include a list extraction call, so this is
pretty widely useful, and it saves a few more keystrokes compared to the
old way.
As with the previous patch, back-patch the addition of these macros to
pg_list.h, so that the notation will be available when back-patching.
Patch by me, after an idea of Andrew Gierth's.
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/14197.1491841216@sss.pgh.pa.us
Commit ac2b09508 was not terribly carefully reviewed. Band-aid it to
not fail on non-RestrictInfo input, per report from Andreas Seltenreich.
Also make it do something more reasonable with variable-free clauses,
and improve nearby comments.
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/87inmf5rdx.fsf@credativ.de
If there can certainly be no more than one matching inner row for a given
outer row, then the executor can move on to the next outer row as soon as
it's found one match; there's no need to continue scanning the inner
relation for this outer row. This saves useless scanning in nestloop
and hash joins. In merge joins, it offers the opportunity to skip
mark/restore processing, because we know we have not advanced past the
first possible match for the next outer row.
Of course, the devil is in the details: the proof of uniqueness must
depend only on joinquals (not otherquals), and if we want to skip
mergejoin mark/restore then it must depend only on merge clauses.
To avoid adding more planning overhead than absolutely necessary,
the present patch errs in the conservative direction: there are cases
where inner_unique or skip_mark_restore processing could be used, but
it will not do so because it's not sure that the uniqueness proof
depended only on "safe" clauses. This could be improved later.
David Rowley, reviewed and rather heavily editorialized on by me
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/CAApHDvqF6Sw-TK98bW48TdtFJ+3a7D2mFyZ7++=D-RyPsL76gw@mail.gmail.com
As reported by Sean Johnston in bug #14614, since 9.6 the planner can fail
due to trying to look up the referent of a Var with varno 0. This happens
because we generate such Vars in generate_append_tlist, for lack of any
better way to describe the output of a SetOp node. In typical situations
nothing really cares about that, but given nested set-operation queries
we will call estimate_num_groups on the output of the subquery, and that
wants to know what a Var actually refers to. That logic used to look at
subquery->targetList, but in commit 3fc6e2d7f I'd switched it to look at
subroot->processed_tlist, ie the actual output of the subquery plan not the
parser's idea of the result. It seemed like a good idea at the time :-(.
As a band-aid fix, change it back.
Really we ought to have an honest way of naming the outputs of SetOp steps,
which suggests that it'd be a good idea for the parser to emit an RTE
corresponding to each one. But that's a task for another day, and it
certainly wouldn't yield a back-patchable fix.
Report: https://postgr.es/m/20170407115808.25934.51866@wrigleys.postgresql.org
Follow on patch in the multi-variate statistics patch series.
CREATE STATISTICS s1 WITH (dependencies) ON (a, b) FROM t;
ANALYZE;
will collect dependency stats on (a, b) and then use the measured
dependency in subsequent query planning.
Commit 7b504eb282 added
CREATE STATISTICS with n-distinct coefficients. These are now
specified using the mutually exclusive option WITH (ndistinct).
Author: Tomas Vondra, David Rowley
Reviewed-by: Kyotaro HORIGUCHI, Álvaro Herrera, Dean Rasheed, Robert Haas
and many other comments and contributions
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/56f40b20-c464-fad2-ff39-06b668fac47c@2ndquadrant.com
Currently, the only type of child relation is an "other member rel",
which is the child of a baserel, but in the future joins and even
upper relations may have child rels. To facilitate that, introduce
macros that test to test for particular RelOptKind values, and use
them in various places where they help to clarify the sense of a test.
(For example, a test may allow RELOPT_OTHER_MEMBER_REL either because
it intends to allow child rels, or because it intends to allow simple
rels.)
Also, remove find_childrel_top_parent, which will not work for a
child rel that is not a baserel. Instead, add a new RelOptInfo
member top_parent_relids to track the same kind of information in a
more generic manner.
Ashutosh Bapat, slightly tweaked by me. Review and testing of the
patch set from which this was taken by Rajkumar Raghuwanshi and Rafia
Sabih.
Discussion: http://postgr.es/m/CA+TgmoagTnF2yqR3PT2rv=om=wJiZ4-A+ATwdnriTGku1CLYxA@mail.gmail.com
gset_data (aka gd) in planner.c is always non-null if and only if
parse->groupingSets is non-null, but Coverity doesn't know that and
complains. Feed it an assertion to see if that keeps it happy.
A QueryEnvironment concept is added, which allows new types of
objects to be passed into queries from parsing on through
execution. At this point, the only thing implemented is a
collection of EphemeralNamedRelation objects -- relations which
can be referenced by name in queries, but do not exist in the
catalogs. The only type of ENR implemented is NamedTuplestore, but
provision is made to add more types fairly easily.
An ENR can carry its own TupleDesc or reference a relation in the
catalogs by relid.
Although these features can be used without SPI, convenience
functions are added to SPI so that ENRs can easily be used by code
run through SPI.
The initial use of all this is going to be transition tables in
AFTER triggers, but that will be added to each PL as a separate
commit.
An incidental effect of this patch is to produce a more informative
error message if an attempt is made to modify the contents of a CTE
from a referencing DML statement. No tests previously covered that
possibility, so one is added.
Kevin Grittner and Thomas Munro
Reviewed by Heikki Linnakangas, David Fetter, and Thomas Munro
with valuable comments and suggestions from many others
Commit 45be99f8cd removed GatherPath's
num_workers field, but this is entirely bogus. Normally, a path's
parallel_workers flag is supposed to indicate the number of workers
that it wants, and should be 0 for a non-partial path. In that
commit, I mistakenly thought that GatherPath could also use that field
to indicate the number of workers that it would try to start, but
that's disastrous, because then it can propagate up to higher nodes in
the plan tree, which will then get incorrect rowcounts because the
parallel_workers flag is involved in computing those values. Repair
by putting the separate field back.
Report by Tomas Vondra. Patch by me, reviewed by Amit Kapila.
Discussion: http://postgr.es/m/f91b4a44-f739-04bd-c4b6-f135bd643669@2ndquadrant.com
copyObject() is declared to return void *, which allows easily assigning
the result independent of the input, but it loses all type checking.
If the compiler supports typeof or something similar, cast the result to
the input type. This creates a greater amount of type safety. In some
cases, where the result is assigned to a generic type such as Node * or
Expr *, new casts are now necessary, but in general casts are now
unnecessary in the normal case and indicate that something unusual is
happening.
Reviewed-by: Mark Dilger <hornschnorter@gmail.com>
This extends the Aggregate node with two new features: HashAggregate
can now run multiple hashtables concurrently, and a new strategy
MixedAggregate populates hashtables while doing sorted grouping.
The planner will now attempt to save as many sorts as possible when
planning grouping sets queries, while not exceeding work_mem for the
estimated combined sizes of all hashtables used. No SQL-level changes
are required. There should be no user-visible impact other than the
new EXPLAIN output and possible changes to result ordering when ORDER
BY was not used (which affected a few regression tests). The
enable_hashagg option is respected.
Author: Andrew Gierth
Reviewers: Mark Dilger, Andres Freund
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/87vatszyhj.fsf@news-spur.riddles.org.uk
This replaces the old, recursive tree-walk based evaluation, with
non-recursive, opcode dispatch based, expression evaluation.
Projection is now implemented as part of expression evaluation.
This both leads to significant performance improvements, and makes
future just-in-time compilation of expressions easier.
The speed gains primarily come from:
- non-recursive implementation reduces stack usage / overhead
- simple sub-expressions are implemented with a single jump, without
function calls
- sharing some state between different sub-expressions
- reduced amount of indirect/hard to predict memory accesses by laying
out operation metadata sequentially; including the avoidance of
nearly all of the previously used linked lists
- more code has been moved to expression initialization, avoiding
constant re-checks at evaluation time
Future just-in-time compilation (JIT) has become easier, as
demonstrated by released patches intended to be merged in a later
release, for primarily two reasons: Firstly, due to a stricter split
between expression initialization and evaluation, less code has to be
handled by the JIT. Secondly, due to the non-recursive nature of the
generated "instructions", less performance-critical code-paths can
easily be shared between interpreted and compiled evaluation.
The new framework allows for significant future optimizations. E.g.:
- basic infrastructure for to later reduce the per executor-startup
overhead of expression evaluation, by caching state in prepared
statements. That'd be helpful in OLTPish scenarios where
initialization overhead is measurable.
- optimizing the generated "code". A number of proposals for potential
work has already been made.
- optimizing the interpreter. Similarly a number of proposals have
been made here too.
The move of logic into the expression initialization step leads to some
backward-incompatible changes:
- Function permission checks are now done during expression
initialization, whereas previously they were done during
execution. In edge cases this can lead to errors being raised that
previously wouldn't have been, e.g. a NULL array being coerced to a
different array type previously didn't perform checks.
- The set of domain constraints to be checked, is now evaluated once
during expression initialization, previously it was re-built
every time a domain check was evaluated. For normal queries this
doesn't change much, but e.g. for plpgsql functions, which caches
ExprStates, the old set could stick around longer. The behavior
around might still change.
Author: Andres Freund, with significant changes by Tom Lane,
changes by Heikki Linnakangas
Reviewed-By: Tom Lane, Heikki Linnakangas
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/20161206034955.bh33paeralxbtluv@alap3.anarazel.de
Add support for explicitly declared statistic objects (CREATE
STATISTICS), allowing collection of statistics on more complex
combinations that individual table columns. Companion commands DROP
STATISTICS and ALTER STATISTICS ... OWNER TO / SET SCHEMA / RENAME are
added too. All this DDL has been designed so that more statistic types
can be added later on, such as multivariate most-common-values and
multivariate histograms between columns of a single table, leaving room
for permitting columns on multiple tables, too, as well as expressions.
This commit only adds support for collection of n-distinct coefficient
on user-specified sets of columns in a single table. This is useful to
estimate number of distinct groups in GROUP BY and DISTINCT clauses;
estimation errors there can cause over-allocation of memory in hashed
aggregates, for instance, so it's a worthwhile problem to solve. A new
special pseudo-type pg_ndistinct is used.
(num-distinct estimation was deemed sufficiently useful by itself that
this is worthwhile even if no further statistic types are added
immediately; so much so that another version of essentially the same
functionality was submitted by Kyotaro Horiguchi:
https://postgr.es/m/20150828.173334.114731693.horiguchi.kyotaro@lab.ntt.co.jp
though this commit does not use that code.)
Author: Tomas Vondra. Some code rework by Álvaro.
Reviewed-by: Dean Rasheed, David Rowley, Kyotaro Horiguchi, Jeff Janes,
Ideriha Takeshi
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/543AFA15.4080608@fuzzy.czhttps://postgr.es/m/20170320190220.ixlaueanxegqd5gr@alvherre.pgsql
Partitioned tables do not contain any data; only their unpartitioned
descendents need to be scanned. However, the partitioned tables still
need to be locked, even though they're not scanned. To make that
work, Append and MergeAppend relations now need to carry a list of
(unscanned) partitioned relations that must be locked, and InitPlan
must lock all partitioned result relations.
Aside from the obvious advantage of avoiding some work at execution
time, this has two other advantages. First, it may improve the
planner's decision-making in some cases since the empty relation
might throw things off. Second, it paves the way to getting rid of
the storage for partitioned tables altogether.
Amit Langote, reviewed by me.
Discussion: http://postgr.es/m/6837c359-45c4-8044-34d1-736756335a15@lab.ntt.co.jp
Partitionwise join proposes add a concept of child join relations,
which will have the same relationship with join relations as "other
member" relations do with base relations. These relations will need
some but not all of the handling that we currently have for join
relations, and some but not all of the handling that we currently have
for appendrels, since they are a mix of the two. Refactor a little
bit so that the necessary bits of logic are exposed as separate
functions.
Ashutosh Bapat, reviewed and tested by Rajkumar Raghuwanshi and
by me.
Discussion: http://postgr.es/m/CAFjFpRfqotRR6cM3sooBHMHEVdkFfAZ6PyYg4GRZsoMuW08HjQ@mail.gmail.com
Commit 51ee6f3160 accidentally changed
the behavior around inheritance hierarchies; before, we always
considered parallel paths even for very small inheritance children,
because otherwise an inheritance hierarchy with even one small child
wouldn't be eligible for parallelism. That exception was inadverently
removed; put it back.
In passing, also adjust the degree-of-parallelism comptuation for
index-only scans not to consider the number of heap pages fetched.
Otherwise, we'll avoid parallel index-only scans on tables that are
mostly all-visible, which isn't especially logical.
Robert Haas and Amit Kapila, per a report from Ashutosh Sharma.
Discussion: http://postgr.es/m/CAE9k0PmgSoOHRd60SHu09aRVTHRSs8s6pmyhJKWHxWw9C_x+XA@mail.gmail.com
This logic was adapated from create_merge_append_plan, but the two
cases aren't really analogous, because create_merge_append_plan is not
projection-capable and must therefore have a tlist identical to that
of the underlying paths. Overwriting the tlist of Gather Merge with
whatever the underlying plan happens to produce is no good at all.
Patch by me, reviewed by Rushabh Lathia, who also reported the issue
and made an initial attempt at a fix.
Discussion: http://postgr.es/m/CA+Tgmob_-oHEOBfT9S25bjqokdqv8e8xEmh9zOY+3MPr_LmuhA@mail.gmail.com
Fallout from fcec6caafa: mark a variable in
set_tablefunc_size_estimates as used for asserts only.
Also, the planner_rte_fetch() call is pointless with assertions
disabled, so enclose it in a USE_ASSERT_CHECKING #ifdef; fix the same
problem in set_subquery_size_estimates().
First problem noted by David Rowley, whose compiler is noisier than mine
in this regard.
Like Gather, we spawn multiple workers and run the same plan in each
one; however, Gather Merge is used when each worker produces the same
output ordering and we want to preserve that output ordering while
merging together the streams of tuples from various workers. (In a
way, Gather Merge is like a hybrid of Gather and MergeAppend.)
This works out to a win if it saves us from having to perform an
expensive Sort. In cases where only a small amount of data would need
to be sorted, it may actually be faster to use a regular Gather node
and then sort the results afterward, because Gather Merge sometimes
needs to wait synchronously for tuples whereas a pure Gather generally
doesn't. But if this avoids an expensive sort then it's a win.
Rushabh Lathia, reviewed and tested by Amit Kapila, Thomas Munro,
and Neha Sharma, and reviewed and revised by me.
Discussion: http://postgr.es/m/CAGPqQf09oPX-cQRpBKS0Gq49Z+m6KBxgxd_p9gX8CKk_d75HoQ@mail.gmail.com
The index is scanned by a single process, but then all cooperating
processes can iterate jointly over the resulting set of heap blocks.
In the future, we might also want to support using a parallel bitmap
index scan to set up for a parallel bitmap heap scan, but that's a
job for another day.
Dilip Kumar, with some corrections and cosmetic changes by me. The
larger patch set of which this is a part has been reviewed and tested
by (at least) Andres Freund, Amit Khandekar, Tushar Ahuja, Rafia
Sabih, Haribabu Kommi, Thomas Munro, and me.
Discussion: http://postgr.es/m/CAFiTN-uc4=0WxRGfCzs-xfkMYcSEWUC-Fon6thkJGjkh9i=13A@mail.gmail.com
XMLTABLE is defined by the SQL/XML standard as a feature that allows
turning XML-formatted data into relational form, so that it can be used
as a <table primary> in the FROM clause of a query.
This new construct provides significant simplicity and performance
benefit for XML data processing; what in a client-side custom
implementation was reported to take 20 minutes can be executed in 400ms
using XMLTABLE. (The same functionality was said to take 10 seconds
using nested PostgreSQL XPath function calls, and 5 seconds using
XMLReader under PL/Python).
The implemented syntax deviates slightly from what the standard
requires. First, the standard indicates that the PASSING clause is
optional and that multiple XML input documents may be given to it; we
make it mandatory and accept a single document only. Second, we don't
currently support a default namespace to be specified.
This implementation relies on a new executor node based on a hardcoded
method table. (Because the grammar is fixed, there is no extensibility
in the current approach; further constructs can be implemented on top of
this such as JSON_TABLE, but they require changes to core code.)
Author: Pavel Stehule, Álvaro Herrera
Extensively reviewed by: Craig Ringer
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/CAFj8pRAgfzMD-LoSmnMGybD0WsEznLHWap8DO79+-GTRAPR4qA@mail.gmail.com
Commit 45be99f8cd took the position
that performing a merge join in parallel was not likely to work out
well, but this conclusion was greeted with skepticism even at the
time. Whether it was true then or not, it's clearly not true any
more now that we have parallel index scan.
Dilip Kumar, reviewed by Amit Kapila and by me.
Discussion: http://postgr.es/m/CAFiTN-v3=cM6nyFwFGp0fmvY4=kk79Hq9Fgu0u8CSJ-EEq1Tiw@mail.gmail.com
Extract the logic used by hash_inner_and_outer into a separate
function, get_cheapest_parallel_safe_total_inner, so that it can
also be used to plan parallel merge joins.
Also, add a require_parallel_safe argument to the existing function
get_cheapest_path_for_pathkeys, because parallel merge join needs
to find the cheapest path for a given set of pathkeys that is
parallel-safe, not just the cheapest one overall.
Patch by me, reviewed by Dilip Kumar.
Discussion: http://postgr.es/m/CA+TgmoYOv+dFK0MWW6366dFj_xTnohQfoBDrHyB7d1oZhrgPjA@mail.gmail.com
When the very cheapest path is not parallel-safe, we want to instead use
the cheapest unparameterized path that is. The old code searched
innerrel->cheapest_parameterized_paths, but that isn't right, because
the path we want may not be in that list. Search innerrel->pathlist
instead.
Spotted by Dilip Kumar.
Discussion: http://postgr.es/m/CAFiTN-szCEcZrQm0i_w4xqSaRUTOUFstNu32Zn4rxxDcoa8gnA@mail.gmail.com
Commit 5262f7a4fc added similar support
for parallel index scans; this extends that work to index-only scans.
As with parallel index scans, this requires support from the index AM,
so currently parallel index-only scans will only be possible for btree
indexes.
Rafia Sabih, reviewed and tested by Rahila Syed, Tushar Ahuja,
and Amit Kapila
Discussion: http://postgr.es/m/CAOGQiiPEAs4C=TBp0XShxBvnWXuzGL2u++Hm1=qnCpd6_Mf8Fw@mail.gmail.com
In combination with 569174f1be, which
taught the btree AM how to perform parallel index scans, this allows
parallel index scan plans on btree indexes. This infrastructure
should be general enough to support parallel index scans for other
index AMs as well, if someone updates them to support parallel
scans.
Amit Kapila, reviewed and tested by Anastasia Lubennikova, Tushar
Ahuja, and Haribabu Kommi, and me.
When min_parallel_relation_size was added, the only supported type
of parallel scan was a parallel sequential scan, but there are
pending patches for parallel index scan, parallel index-only scan,
and parallel bitmap heap scan. Those patches introduce two new
types of complications: first, what's relevant is not really the
total size of the relation but the portion of it that we will scan;
and second, index pages and heap pages shouldn't necessarily be
treated in exactly the same way. Typically, the number of index
pages will be quite small, but that doesn't necessarily mean that
a parallel index scan can't pay off.
Therefore, we introduce min_parallel_table_scan_size, which works
out a degree of parallelism for scans based on the number of table
pages that will be scanned (and which is therefore equivalent to
min_parallel_relation_size for parallel sequential scans) and also
min_parallel_index_scan_size which can be used to work out a degree
of parallelism based on the number of index pages that will be
scanned.
Amit Kapila and Robert Haas
Discussion: http://postgr.es/m/CAA4eK1KowGSYYVpd2qPpaPPA5R90r++QwDFbrRECTE9H_HvpOg@mail.gmail.com
Discussion: http://postgr.es/m/CAA4eK1+TnM4pXQbvn7OXqam+k_HZqb0ROZUMxOiL6DWJYCyYow@mail.gmail.com
This doesn't do anything to make Param nodes anything other than
parallel-restricted, so this only helps with uncorrelated subplans,
and it's not necessarily very cheap because each worker will run the
subplan separately (just as a Hash Join will build a separate copy of
the hash table in each participating process), but it's a first step
toward supporting cases that are more likely to help in practice, and
is occasionally useful on its own.
Amit Kapila, reviewed and tested by Rafia Sabih, Dilip Kumar, and
me.
Discussion: http://postgr.es/m/CAA4eK1+e8Z45D2n+rnDMDYsVEb5iW7jqaCH_tvPMYau=1Rru9w@mail.gmail.com
