fc069a3a6319 implements Self-Join Elimination (SJE), which can remove base
relations when appropriate. However, regressions tests for SJE only cover
the case when placeholder variables (PHVs) are evaluated and needed only
in a single base rel. If this baserel is removed due to SJE, its clauses,
including PHVs, will be transferred to the keeping relation. Removing these
PHVs may trigger an error on plan creation -- thanks to the b3ff6c742f6c for
detecting that.
This commit skips removal of PHVs during SJE. This might also happen that
we skip the removal of some PHVs that could be removed. However, the overhead
of extra PHVs is small compared to the complexity of analysis needed to remove
them.
Reported-by: Alexander Lakhin <exclusion@gmail.com>
Author: Alena Rybakina <a.rybakina@postgrespro.ru>
Author: Andrei Lepikhov <lepihov@gmail.com>
Reviewed-by: Alexander Korotkov <aekorotkov@gmail.com>
Reviewed-by: Richard Guo <guofenglinux@gmail.com>
The Self-Join Elimination (SJE) feature removes an inner join of a plain
table to itself in the query tree if it is proven that the join can be
replaced with a scan without impacting the query result. Self-join and
inner relation get replaced with the outer in query, equivalence classes,
and planner info structures. Also, the inner restrictlist moves to the
outer one with the removal of duplicated clauses. Thus, this optimization
reduces the length of the range table list (this especially makes sense for
partitioned relations), reduces the number of restriction clauses and,
in turn, selectivity estimations, and potentially improves total planner
prediction for the query.
This feature is dedicated to avoiding redundancy, which can appear after
pull-up transformations or the creation of an EquivalenceClass-derived clause
like the below.
SELECT * FROM t1 WHERE x IN (SELECT t3.x FROM t1 t3);
SELECT * FROM t1 WHERE EXISTS (SELECT t3.x FROM t1 t3 WHERE t3.x = t1.x);
SELECT * FROM t1,t2, t1 t3 WHERE t1.x = t2.x AND t2.x = t3.x;
In the future, we could also reduce redundancy caused by subquery pull-up
after unnecessary outer join removal in cases like the one below.
SELECT * FROM t1 WHERE x IN
(SELECT t3.x FROM t1 t3 LEFT JOIN t2 ON t2.x = t1.x);
Also, it can drastically help to join partitioned tables, removing entries
even before their expansion.
The SJE proof is based on innerrel_is_unique() machinery.
We can remove a self-join when for each outer row:
1. At most, one inner row matches the join clause;
2. Each matched inner row must be (physically) the same as the outer one;
3. Inner and outer rows have the same row mark.
In this patch, we use the next approach to identify a self-join:
1. Collect all merge-joinable join quals which look like a.x = b.x;
2. Add to the list above the baseretrictinfo of the inner table;
3. Check innerrel_is_unique() for the qual list. If it returns false, skip
this pair of joining tables;
4. Check uniqueness, proved by the baserestrictinfo clauses. To prove the
possibility of self-join elimination, the inner and outer clauses must
match exactly.
The relation replacement procedure is not trivial and is partly combined
with the one used to remove useless left joins. Tests covering this feature
were added to join.sql. Some of the existing regression tests changed due
to self-join removal logic.
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/flat/64486b0b-0404-e39e-322d-0801154901f3%40postgrespro.ru
Author: Andrey Lepikhov <a.lepikhov@postgrespro.ru>
Author: Alexander Kuzmenkov <a.kuzmenkov@postgrespro.ru>
Co-authored-by: Alexander Korotkov <aekorotkov@gmail.com>
Co-authored-by: Alena Rybakina <lena.ribackina@yandex.ru>
Reviewed-by: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Reviewed-by: Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com>
Reviewed-by: Andres Freund <andres@anarazel.de>
Reviewed-by: Simon Riggs <simon@2ndquadrant.com>
Reviewed-by: Jonathan S. Katz <jkatz@postgresql.org>
Reviewed-by: David Rowley <david.rowley@2ndquadrant.com>
Reviewed-by: Thomas Munro <thomas.munro@enterprisedb.com>
Reviewed-by: Konstantin Knizhnik <k.knizhnik@postgrespro.ru>
Reviewed-by: Heikki Linnakangas <hlinnaka@iki.fi>
Reviewed-by: Hywel Carver <hywel@skillerwhale.com>
Reviewed-by: Laurenz Albe <laurenz.albe@cybertec.at>
Reviewed-by: Ronan Dunklau <ronan.dunklau@aiven.io>
Reviewed-by: vignesh C <vignesh21@gmail.com>
Reviewed-by: Zhihong Yu <zyu@yugabyte.com>
Reviewed-by: Greg Stark <stark@mit.edu>
Reviewed-by: Jaime Casanova <jcasanov@systemguards.com.ec>
Reviewed-by: Michał Kłeczek <michal@kleczek.org>
Reviewed-by: Alena Rybakina <lena.ribackina@yandex.ru>
Reviewed-by: Alexander Korotkov <aekorotkov@gmail.com>
This commit allows transformation of OR-clauses into SAOP's for index scans
within nested loop joins. That required the following changes.
1. Make match_orclause_to_indexcol() and group_similar_or_args() understand
const-ness in the same way as match_opclause_to_indexcol(). This
generally makes our approach more uniform.
2. Make match_join_clauses_to_index() pass OR-clauses to
match_clause_to_index().
3. Also switch match_join_clauses_to_index() to use list_append_unique_ptr()
for adding clauses to *joinorclauses. That avoids possible duplicates
when processing the same clauses with different indexes. Previously such
duplicates were elimited in match_clause_to_index(), but now
group_similar_or_args() each time generates distinct copies of grouped
OR clauses.
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/CAPpHfdv%2BjtNwofg-p5z86jLYZUTt6tR17Wy00ta0dL%3DwHQN3ZA%40mail.gmail.com
Reviewed-by: Andrei Lepikhov <lepihov@gmail.com>
Reviewed-by: Alena Rybakina <a.rybakina@postgrespro.ru>
Reviewed-by: Pavel Borisov <pashkin.elfe@gmail.com>
When looking up statistical data about an expression, we do not need
to concern ourselves with the outer joins that could null the
Vars/PHVs contained in the expression. Accounting for nullingrels in
the expression could cause estimate_num_groups to count the same Var
multiple times if it's marked with different nullingrels. This is
incorrect, and could lead to "ERROR: corrupt MVNDistinct entry" when
searching for multivariate n-distinct.
Furthermore, the nullingrels could prevent us from matching an
expression to expressional index columns or to the expressions in
extended statistics, leading to inaccurate estimates.
To fix, strip out all the nullingrels from the expression before we
look up statistical data about it. There is one ensuing plan change
in the regression tests, but it looks reasonable and does not
compromise its original purpose.
This patch could result in plan changes, but it fixes an actual bug,
so back-patch to v16 where the outer-join-aware-Var infrastructure was
introduced.
Author: Richard Guo
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/CAMbWs4-2Z4k+nFTiZe0Qbu5n8juUWenDAtMzi98bAZQtwHx0-w@mail.gmail.com
1a0da347a7ac98db replaced Bitmap Table Scan's individual private and
shared iterators with a unified iterator. It neglected, however, to
check if the iterator had already been cleaned up before doing so on
rescan. Add this check both on rescan and end scan to be safe.
Reported-by: Richard Guo
Author: Richard Guo
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/CAMbWs48nrhcLY1kcd-u9oD%2B6yiS631F_8Fx8ZGsO-BYDwH%2Bbyw%40mail.gmail.com
In commit 5668a857d, we fixed an issue with incorrect results in right
semi joins and introduced a test case to verify the fix. The test
case involves SubPlans and InitPlans, which may not be immediately
apparent in relation to the issue we addressed.
This patch simplifies the test case with a more straightforward query.
Per discussion with Melanie Plageman.
Author: Richard Guo
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/CAAKRu_a-Cip2XCXp13fmxq+T9BhLAVApHTyjr94awL2mbXHC-Q@mail.gmail.com
When resetting a HashJoin node for rescans, if it is a single-batch
join and there are no parameter changes for the inner subnode, we can
just reuse the existing hash table without rebuilding it. However,
for join types that depend on the inner-tuple match flags in the hash
table, we need to reset these match flags to avoid incorrect results.
This applies to right, right-anti, right-semi, and full joins.
When I introduced "Right Semi Join" plan shapes in aa86129e1, I failed
to reset the match flags in the hash table for right-semi joins in
rescans. This oversight has been shown to produce incorrect results.
This patch fixes it.
Author: Richard Guo
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/CAMbWs4-nQF9io2WL2SkD0eXvfPdyBc9Q=hRwfQHCGV2usa0jyA@mail.gmail.com
This commit makes match_clause_to_indexcol() match
"(indexkey op C1) OR (indexkey op C2) ... (indexkey op CN)" expression
to the index while transforming it into "indexkey op ANY(ARRAY[C1, C2, ...])"
(ScalarArrayOpExpr node).
This transformation allows handling long OR-clauses with single IndexScan
avoiding diving them into a slower BitmapOr.
We currently restrict Ci to be either Const or Param to apply this
transformation only when it's clearly beneficial. However, in the future,
we might switch to a liberal understanding of constants, as it is in other
cases.
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/567ED6CA.2040504%40sigaev.ru
Author: Alena Rybakina, Andrey Lepikhov, Alexander Korotkov
Reviewed-by: Peter Geoghegan, Ranier Vilela, Alexander Korotkov, Robert Haas
Reviewed-by: Jian He, Tom Lane, Nikolay Shaplov
For an EXISTS subquery, the only thing that matters is whether it
returns zero or more than zero rows. Therefore, we remove certain SQL
features that won't affect that, among them the GROUP BY clauses.
After we drop the groupClause, we'd better remove the RTE_GROUP RTE
and clear the hasGroupRTE flag, as they depend on the groupClause.
Failing to do so could result in a bogus RTE_GROUP entry in the parent
query, leading to an assertion failure on the hasGroupRTE flag.
Reported-by: David Rowley
Author: Richard Guo
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/CAApHDvp2_yht8uPLyWO-kVGWZhYvx5zjGfSrg4fBQ9fsC13V0g@mail.gmail.com
adf97c156 made it so ExprStates could support hashing and changed Hash
Join to use that instead of manually extracting Datums from tuples and
hashing them one column at a time.
When hashing multiple columns or expressions, the code added in that
commit stored the intermediate hash value in the ExprState's resvalue
field. That was a mistake as steps may be injected into the ExprState
between each hashing step that look at or overwrite the stored
intermediate hash value. EEOP_PARAM_SET is an example of such a step.
Here we fix this by adding a new dedicated field for storing
intermediate hash values and adjust the code so that all apart from the
final hashing step store their result in the intermediate field.
In passing, rename a variable so that it's more aligned to the
surrounding code and also so a few lines stay within the 80 char margin.
Reported-by: Andres Freund
Reviewed-by: Alena Rybakina <a.rybakina@postgrespro.ru>
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/CAApHDvqo9eenEFXND5zZ9JxO_k4eTA4jKMGxSyjdTrsmYvnmZw@mail.gmail.com
Up to now, remove_rel_from_query() has done a pretty shoddy job
of updating our where-needed bitmaps (per-Var attr_needed and
per-PlaceHolderVar ph_needed relid sets). It removed direct mentions
of the to-be-removed baserel and outer join, which is the minimum
amount of effort needed to keep the data structures self-consistent.
But it didn't account for the fact that the removed join ON clause
probably mentioned Vars of other relations, and those Vars might now
not be needed as high up in the join tree as before. It's easy to
show cases where this results in failing to remove a lower outer join
that could also have been removed.
To fix, recalculate the where-needed bitmaps from scratch after
each successful join removal. This sounds expensive, but it seems
to add only negligible planner runtime. (We cheat a little bit
by preserving "relation 0" entries in the bitmaps, allowing us to
skip re-scanning the targetlist and HAVING qual.)
The submitted test case drew attention because we had successfully
optimized away the lower join prior to v16. I suspect that that's
somewhat accidental and there are related cases that were never
optimized before and now can be. I've not tried to come up with
one, though.
Perhaps we should back-patch this into v16 and v17 to repair the
performance regression. However, since it took a year for anyone
to notice the problem, it can't be affecting too many people. Let's
let the patch bake awhile in HEAD, and see if we get more complaints.
Per bug #18627 from Mikaël Gourlaouen. No back-patch for now.
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/18627-44f950eb6a8416c2@postgresql.org
For an inner_unique join, we always assume that the executor will stop
scanning for matches after the first match. Therefore, for a mergejoin
that is inner_unique and whose mergeclauses are sufficient to identify a
match, we set the skip_mark_restore flag to true, indicating that the
executor need not do mark/restore calls. However, merge-right-anti-join
did not get this memo and continues scanning the inner side for matches
after the first match. If there are duplicates in the outer scan, we
may incorrectly skip matching some inner tuples, which can lead to wrong
results.
Here we fix this issue by ensuring that merge-right-anti-join also
advances to next outer tuple after the first match in inner_unique
cases. This also saves cycles by avoiding unnecessary scanning of inner
tuples after the first match.
Although hash-right-anti-join does not suffer from this wrong results
issue, we apply the same change to it as well, to help save cycles for
the same reason.
Per bug #18522 from Antti Lampinen, and bug #18526 from Feliphe Pozzer.
Back-patch to v16 where right-anti-join was introduced.
Author: Richard Guo
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/18522-c7a8956126afdfd0@postgresql.org
Hash joins can support semijoin with the LHS input on the right, using
the existing logic for inner join, combined with the assurance that only
the first match for each inner tuple is considered, which can be
achieved by leveraging the HEAP_TUPLE_HAS_MATCH flag. This can be very
useful in some cases since we may now have the option to hash the
smaller table instead of the larger.
Merge join could likely support "Right Semi Join" too. However, the
benefit of swapping inputs tends to be small here, so we do not address
that in this patch.
Note that this patch also modifies a test query in join.sql to ensure it
continues testing as intended. With this patch the original query would
result in a right-semi-join rather than semi-join, compromising its
original purpose of testing the fix for neqjoinsel's behavior for
semi-joins.
Author: Richard Guo
Reviewed-by: wenhui qiu, Alena Rybakina, Japin Li
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/CAMbWs4_X1mN=ic+SxcyymUqFx9bB8pqSLTGJ-F=MHy4PW3eRXw@mail.gmail.com
04e72ed617be pushed the skip fetch optimization (allowing bitmap heap
scans to operate like index-only scans if none of the underlying data is
needed) into heap AM implementations of bitmap table scan callbacks.
04e72ed617be added an assert that all tuples in blocks eligible for the
optimization had been NULL-filled and emitted by the end of the scan.
This assert is incorrect when not all tuples need be scanned to execute
the query; for example: a join in which not all inner tuples need to be
scanned before skipping to the next outer tuple.
Remove the assert and reset the field on which it previously asserted to
avoid incorrectly emitting NULL-filled tuples from a previous scan on
rescan.
Author: Melanie Plageman
Reviewed-by: Tomas Vondra, Michael Paquier, Alvaro Herrera
Reported-by: Melanie Plageman
Reproduced-by: Tomas Vondra, Richard Guo
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/CAMbWs48orzZVXa7-vP9Nt7vQWLTE04Qy4PePaLQYsVNQgo6qRg%40mail.gmail.com
This commit reverts d3d55ce5713 and subsequent fixes 2b26a694554, 93c85db3b5b,
b44a1708abe, b7f315c9d7d, 8a8ed916f73, b5fb6736ed3, 0a93f803f45, e0477837ce4,
a7928a57b9f, 5ef34a8fc38, 30b4955a466, 8c441c08279, 028b15405b4, fe093994db4,
489072ab7a9, and 466979ef031.
We are quite late in the release cycle and new bugs continue to appear. Even
though we have fixes for all known bugs, there is a risk of throwing many
bugs to end users.
The plan for self-join elimination would be to do more review and testing,
then re-commit in the early v18 cycle.
Reported-by: Tom Lane
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/2422119.1714691974%40sss.pgh.pa.us
Replace (expr op C1) OR (expr op C2) ... with expr op ANY(ARRAY[C1, C2, ...])
on the preliminary stage of optimization when we are still working with the
expression tree.
Here Cn is a n-th constant expression, 'expr' is non-constant expression, 'op'
is an operator which returns boolean result and has a commuter (for the case
of reverse order of constant and non-constant parts of the expression,
like 'Cn op expr').
Sometimes it can lead to not optimal plan. This is why there is a
or_to_any_transform_limit GUC. It specifies a threshold value of length of
arguments in an OR expression that triggers the OR-to-ANY transformation.
Generally, more groupable OR arguments mean that transformation will be more
likely to win than to lose.
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/567ED6CA.2040504%40sigaev.ru
Author: Alena Rybakina <lena.ribackina@yandex.ru>
Author: Andrey Lepikhov <a.lepikhov@postgrespro.ru>
Reviewed-by: Peter Geoghegan <pg@bowt.ie>
Reviewed-by: Ranier Vilela <ranier.vf@gmail.com>
Reviewed-by: Alexander Korotkov <aekorotkov@gmail.com>
Reviewed-by: Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com>
Reviewed-by: Jian He <jian.universality@gmail.com>
This commit introduces a new field 'sublevels_up' in ReplaceVarnoContext,
and enhances replace_varno_walker() to:
1) recurse into subselects with sublevels_up increased, and
2) perform the replacement only when varlevelsup is equal to sublevels_up.
This commit also fixes some outdated comments. And besides adding relevant
test cases, it makes some unification over existing SJE test cases.
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/CAMbWs4-%3DPO6Mm9gNnySbx0VHyXjgnnYYwbN9dth%3DTLQweZ-M%2Bg%40mail.gmail.com
Author: Richard Guo
Reviewed-by: Andrei Lepikhov, Alexander Korotkov
For ANY-SUBLINK, we adopted a two-stage pull-up approach to handle
different types of scenarios. In the first stage, the sublink is pulled up
as a subquery. Because of this, when writing this code, we did not have
the ability to perform lateral joins, and therefore, we were unable to
pull up Var with varlevelsup=1. Now that we have the ability to use
lateral joins, we can eliminate this limitation.
Author: Andy Fan <zhihui.fan1213@gmail.com>
Author: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Reviewed-by: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Reviewed-by: Richard Guo <guofenglinux@gmail.com>
Reviewed-by: Alena Rybakina <lena.ribackina@yandex.ru>
Reviewed-by: Andrey Lepikhov <a.lepikhov@postgrespro.ru>
When removing a useless join, we'd remove PHVs that are not used at join
partner rels or above the join. A PHV that references the join's relid
in ph_eval_at is logically "above" the join and thus should not be
removed. We have the following check for that:
!bms_is_member(ojrelid, phinfo->ph_eval_at)
However, in the case of SJE removing a useless inner join, 'ojrelid' is
set to -1, which would trigger the "negative bitmapset member not
allowed" error in bms_is_member().
Fix it by skipping examining ojrelid for inner joins in this check.
Reported-by: Zuming Jiang
Bug: #18260
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/18260-1b6a0c4ae311b837%40postgresql.org
Author: Richard Guo
Reviewed-by: Andrei Lepikhov
The code for wrapping subquery output expressions in PlaceHolderVars
believed that if the expression already was a PlaceHolderVar, it was
never necessary to wrap that in another one. That's wrong if the
expression is underneath an outer join and involves a lateral
reference to outside that scope: failing to add an additional PHV
risks evaluating the expression at the wrong place and hence not
forcing it to null when the outer join should do so. This is an
oversight in commit 9e7e29c75, which added logic to forcibly wrap
lateral-reference Vars in PlaceHolderVars, but didn't see that the
adjacent case for PlaceHolderVars needed the same treatment.
The test case we have for this doesn't fail before 4be058fe9, but now
that I see the problem I wonder if it is possible to demonstrate
related errors before that. That's moot though, since all such
branches are out of support.
Per bug #18284 from Holger Reise. Back-patch to all supported
branches.
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/18284-47505a20c23647f8@postgresql.org
The target relation for INSERT/UPDATE/DELETE/MERGE has a different behavior
than other relations in EvalPlanQual() and RETURNING clause. This is why we
forbid target relation to be either source or target relation in SJE.
It's not clear if we could ever support this.
Reported-by: Alexander Lakhin
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/b9e8f460-f9a6-0e9b-e8ba-60d59f0bc22c%40gmail.com
When SJE uses RelOptInfo.unique_for_rels cache, it passes filtered quals to
innerrel_is_unique_ext(). That might lead to an invalid match to cache entries
made by previous non self-join checking calls. Add UniqueRelInfo.self_join
flag to prevent such cases. Also, fix that SJE should require a strict match
of outerrelids to make sure UniqueRelInfo.extra_clauses are valid.
Reported-by: Alexander Lakhin
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/4788f781-31bd-9796-d7d6-588a751c8787%40gmail.com
When the SJE code handles the transfer of qual clauses from the removed
relation to the remaining one, it replaces the Vars of the removed
relation with the Vars of the remaining relation for each clause, and
then reintegrates these clauses into the appropriate restriction or join
clause lists, while attempting to avoid duplicates.
However, the code compares RestrictInfo->clause to determine if two
clauses are duplicates. This is just flat wrong. Two RestrictInfos
with the same clause can have different required_relids,
incompatible_relids, is_pushed_down, and so on. This can cause qual
clauses to be mistakenly omitted, leading to wrong results.
This patch fixes it by comparing the entire RestrictInfos not just their
clauses ignoring 'rinfo_serial' field (otherwise almost all RestrictInfos will
be unique). Making 'rinfo_serial' equal_ignore would break other code. This
is why this commit implements our own comparison function for checking the
equality of RestrictInfos.
Reported-by: Zuming Jiang
Bug: #18261
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/18261-2a75d748c928609b%40postgresql.org
Author: Richard Guo
There are a lot of situations when we share the same pointer to a Bitmapset
structure across different places. In order to evade undesirable side effects
replace_relid() function should always return a copy.
Reported-by: Richard Guo
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/CAMbWs4_wJthNtYBL%2BSsebpgF-5L2r5zFFk6xYbS0A78GKOTFHw%40mail.gmail.com
Reviewed-by: Richard Guo, Andres Freund, Ashutosh Bapat, Andrei Lepikhov
Self-join removal appears to be safe to apply with placeholder variables
as long as we handle PlaceHolderVar in replace_varno_walker() and replace
relid in phinfo->ph_lateral.
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/18187-831da249cbd2ff8e%40postgresql.org
Author: Richard Guo
Reviewed-by: Andrei Lepikhov
It seems that a PHV evaluated/needed at or below the self join should not have
a problem if we remove the self join. But this requires further investigation.
For now, we just do not remove self joins if the rel to be removed is laterally
referenced by PHVs.
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/CAMbWs4-ns73VF9gi37q61G3dS6Xuos+HtryMaBh37WQn=BsaJw@mail.gmail.com
Author: Richard Guo
We can simplify FieldSelect on a whole-row Var into a plain Var
for the selected field. However, we should copy the whole-row Var's
varnullingrels when we do so, because the new Var is clearly nullable
by exactly the same rels as the original. Failure to do this led to
errors like "wrong varnullingrels (b) (expected (b 3)) for Var 2/2".
Richard Guo, per bug #18184 from Marian Krucina. Back-patch to
v16 where varnullingrels was introduced.
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/18184-5868dd258782058e@postgresql.org
recurse_set_operations() uses the parse tree for the group number estimation,
because of the "varno 0" hack. At the same time 2489d76c49 made root->parse
and corresponding parent_root->simple_rte_array[]->subquery distinct copies
of the parse tree, while d3d55ce571 introduced self-join removal replacing
relid of removed relation only in one of the copies.
The present commit fixes this bug by making recurse_set_operations() call
estimate_num_groups() with the copy of the parse tree processed by self-join
removal.
In future, we may think about maintaining just one copy of the parse tree
and/or keeping removed relids as aliases.
Reported-by: Zuming Jiang
Bug: #18170
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/flat/18170-f1d17bf9a0d58b24%40postgresql.org
Author: Richard Guo, Alexander Korotkov
Reviewed-by: Andrei Lepikhov
The Self Join Elimination (SJE) feature removes an inner join of a plain table
to itself in the query tree if is proved that the join can be replaced with
a scan without impacting the query result. Self join and inner relation are
replaced with the outer in query, equivalence classes, and planner info
structures. Also, inner restrictlist moves to the outer one with removing
duplicated clauses. Thus, this optimization reduces the length of the range
table list (this especially makes sense for partitioned relations), reduces
the number of restriction clauses === selectivity estimations, and potentially
can improve total planner prediction for the query.
The SJE proof is based on innerrel_is_unique machinery.
We can remove a self-join when for each outer row:
1. At most one inner row matches the join clause.
2. Each matched inner row must be (physically) the same row as the outer one.
In this patch we use the next approach to identify a self-join:
1. Collect all merge-joinable join quals which look like a.x = b.x
2. Add to the list above the baseretrictinfo of the inner table.
3. Check innerrel_is_unique() for the qual list. If it returns false, skip
this pair of joining tables.
4. Check uniqueness, proved by the baserestrictinfo clauses. To prove
the possibility of self-join elimination inner and outer clauses must have
an exact match.
The relation replacement procedure is not trivial and it is partly combined
with the one, used to remove useless left joins. Tests, covering this feature,
were added to join.sql. Some regression tests changed due to self-join removal
logic.
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/flat/64486b0b-0404-e39e-322d-0801154901f3%40postgrespro.ru
Author: Andrey Lepikhov, Alexander Kuzmenkov
Reviewed-by: Tom Lane, Robert Haas, Andres Freund, Simon Riggs, Jonathan S. Katz
Reviewed-by: David Rowley, Thomas Munro, Konstantin Knizhnik, Heikki Linnakangas
Reviewed-by: Hywel Carver, Laurenz Albe, Ronan Dunklau, vignesh C, Zhihong Yu
Reviewed-by: Greg Stark, Jaime Casanova, Michał Kłeczek, Alena Rybakina
Reviewed-by: Alexander Korotkov
An outer join cannot be formed using an input path that is parameterized
by a value that is supposed to be nulled by the outer join. This is
obviously nonsensical, and it could lead to a bad plan being selected;
although currently it seems that we'll hit various sanity-check
assertions first.
I think that such cases were formerly prevented by the delay_upper_joins
mechanism, but now that that's gone we need an explicit check.
(Perhaps we should avoid generating baserel paths that could
lead to this situation in the first place; but it seems like
having a defense at the join level would be a good idea anyway.)
Richard Guo and Tom Lane, per report from Jaime Casanova
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/CAJKUy5g2uZRrUDZJ8p-=giwcSHVUn0c9nmdxPSY0jF0Ov8VoEA@mail.gmail.com
I removed the delay_upper_joins mechanism in commit b448f1c8d,
reasoning that it was only needed when we have a single-table
(SELECT ... WHERE) as the immediate RHS child of a left join,
and we could get rid of that by hoisting the WHERE condition into
the parent join's quals. However that new code missed a case:
we could have "foo LEFT JOIN ((SELECT ... WHERE) LEFT JOIN bar)",
and if the two left joins can be commuted then we now have the
problematic query shape. We can fix this too easily enough,
by allowing the syntactically-lower left join to pass through
its parent qual location pointer recursively. That lets
prepjointree.c discard the SELECT by temporarily hoisting the
WHERE condition into the ancestor join's qual.
Per bug #17978 from Zuming Jiang.
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/17978-12f3d93a55297266@postgresql.org
This avoids an assertion failure when outer joins are rearranged
per identity 3. Listing only the baserels from a PlaceHolderVar's
ph_lateral set should be enough to ensure that the required values
are available when we need to compute the PHV --- it's what we
did before inventing nullingrel sets, after all. It's a bit
unsatisfying; but with beta2 hard upon us, there's not time to
look for an aesthetically cleaner fix.
Richard Guo and Tom Lane
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/CAMbWs48Jcw-NvnxT23WiHP324wG44DvzcH1j4hc0Zn+3sR9cfg@mail.gmail.com
It turns out that the fixes we applied in commits bfd332b3f
and 63e4f13d2 were not nearly enough to solve the problem.
We'd focused narrowly on subquery RTEs with lateral references,
but lateral references can occur in several other RTE kinds
such as function RTEs. Putting the same hack into half a dozen
code paths seems quite unattractive. Hence, revert the code changes
(but not the test cases) from those commits and instead solve it
centrally in identify_current_nestloop_params(), as Richard proposed
originally. This is a bit annoying because it could mask erroneous
nullingrels in nestloop params that are generated from non-LATERAL
parameterized paths; but on balance I don't see a better way.
Maybe at some future time we'll be motivated to find a more rigorous
approach to nestloop params, but that's not happening for beta2.
Richard Guo and Tom Lane
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/CAMbWs48Jcw-NvnxT23WiHP324wG44DvzcH1j4hc0Zn+3sR9cfg@mail.gmail.com
Here we adjust relation_has_unique_index_for() so that it no longer makes
use of partial unique indexes as uniqueness proofs. It is incorrect to
use these as the predicates used by check_index_predicates() to set
predOK makes use of not only baserestrictinfo quals as proofs, but also
qual from join conditions. For relation_has_unique_index_for()'s case, we
need to know the relation is unique for a given set of columns before any
joins are evaluated, so if predOK was only set to true due to some join
qual, then it's unsafe to use such indexes in
relation_has_unique_index_for(). The final plan may not even make use
of that index, which could result in reading tuples that are not as
unique as the planner previously expected them to be.
Bug: #17975
Reported-by: Tor Erik Linnerud
Backpatch-through: 11, all supported versions
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/17975-98a90c156f25c952%40postgresql.org
Since commit b448f1c8d, we've been able to remove left joins
(that are otherwise removable) even when they are underneath
other left joins, a case that was previously prevented by a
delay_upper_joins check. This is a clear improvement, but
it has a surprising side-effect: it's now possible that there
are EquivalenceClasses whose relid sets mention the removed
baserel and/or outer join. If we fail to clean those up,
we may drop essential join quals due to not having any join
level that appears to satisfy their relid sets.
(It's not quite 100% clear that this was impossible before.
But the lack of complaints since we added join removal a dozen
years ago strongly suggests that it was impossible.)
Richard Guo and Tom Lane, per bug #17976 from Zuming Jiang
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/17976-4b638b525e9a983b@postgresql.org
The issue fixed in commit bfd332b3f can also bite Memoize plans,
because of the separate copies of lateral reference Vars made
by paraminfo_get_equal_hashops. Apply the same hacky fix there.
(In passing, clean up shaky grammar in the existing comments
for this function.)
Richard Guo
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/CAMbWs4-krwk0Wbd6WdufMAupuou_Ua73ijQ4XQCr1Mb5BaVtKQ@mail.gmail.com
If we apply outer join identity 3 when relation C is a subquery
having lateral references to relation B, then the lateral references
within C continue to bear the original syntactically-correct
varnullingrels marks, but that won't match what is available from
the outer side of the nestloop. Compensate for that in
process_subquery_nestloop_params(). This is a slightly hacky fix,
but we certainly don't want to re-plan C in toto for each possible
outer join order, so there's not a lot of better alternatives.
Richard Guo and Tom Lane, per report from Markus Winand
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/DFBB2D25-DE97-49CA-A60E-07C881EA59A7@winand.at
A placeholder that references the outer join's relid in ph_eval_at
is logically "above" the join, and therefore we can't remove its
PlaceHolderInfo: it might still be used somewhere in the query.
This was not an issue pre-v16 because we failed to remove the join
at all in such cases. The new outer-join-aware-Var infrastructure
permits deducing that it's okay to remove the join, but then we
have to clean up correctly afterwards.
Report and fix by Richard Guo
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/CAMbWs4_tuVn9EwwMcggGiZJWWstdXX_ci8FeEU17vs+4nLgw3w@mail.gmail.com
When we're deleting a no-op LEFT JOIN from the query, we must remove
the join's joinclauses from surviving relations' joininfo lists.
The invention of "cloned" clauses in 2489d76c4 broke the logic for
that; it'd fail to remove clones that include OJ relids outside the
doomed join's min relid sets, which could happen if that join was
previously discovered to commute with some other join.
This accidentally failed to cause problems in the majority of cases,
because we'd never decide that such a cloned clause was evaluatable at
any surviving join. However, Richard Guo discovered a case where that
did happen, leading to "no relation entry for relid" errors later.
Also, adding assertions that a non-removed clause contains no Vars from
the doomed join exposes that there are quite a few existing regression
test cases where the problem happens but is accidentally not exposed.
The fix for this is just to include the target join's commute_above_r
and commute_below_l sets in the relid set we test against when
deciding whether a join clause is "pushed down" and thus not
removable.
While at it, do a little refactoring: the join's relid set can be
computed inside remove_rel_from_query rather than in the caller.
Patch by me; thanks to Richard Guo for review.
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/CAMbWs4_PHrRqTKDNnTRsxxQy6BtYCVKsgXm1_gdN2yQ=kmcO5g@mail.gmail.com
We've had multiple issues with the clause_is_computable_at logic that
I introduced in 2489d76c4: it's been known to accept more than one
clone of the same qual at the same plan node, and also to accept no
clones at all. It's looking impractical to get it 100% right on the
basis of the currently-stored information, so fix it by introducing a
new RestrictInfo field "incompatible_relids" that explicitly shows
which outer joins a given clone mustn't be pushed above.
In principle we could populate this field in every RestrictInfo, but
that would cost space and there doesn't presently seem to be a need
for it in general. Also, while deconstruct_distribute_oj_quals can
easily fill the field with the remaining members of the commutative
join set that it's considering, computing it in the general case
seems again pretty complicated. So for now, just fill it for
clone quals.
Along the way, fix a bug that may or may not be only latent:
equivclass.c was generating replacement clauses with is_pushed_down
and has_clone/is_clone markings that didn't match their
required_relids. This led me to conclude that leaving the clone flags
out of make_restrictinfo's purview wasn't such a great idea after all,
so add them.
Per report from Richard Guo.
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/CAMbWs48EYi_9-pSd0ORes1kTmTeAjT4Q3gu49hJtYCbSn2JyeA@mail.gmail.com
Use the clause's required_relids not clause_relids for testing
whether it is computable at the current join level, if it is a
clone clause generated by deconstruct_distribute_oj_quals().
Arguably, this is more correct and we should do it for all clauses;
that would at least remove the handwavy claim that we are doing
it to save cycles compared to inspecting Vars individually.
However, attempting to do that exposes that we are not being careful
to compute an accurate value for required_relids in all cases.
I'm unsure whether it's a good idea to attempt to do that for v16,
or leave it as future clean-up. In the meantime, this quick hack
demonstrably fixes some cases, so let's squeeze it in for beta1.
Patch by me, but great thanks to Richard Guo for investigation
and testing. The new test cases are all modeled on his examples.
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/CAMbWs4-_vwkBij4XOQ5ukxUvLgwTm0kS5_DO9CicUeKbEfKjUw@mail.gmail.com
In commit 9df8f903e I (tgl) switched join_is_removable() from
using the min relid sets of the join under consideration to
using its full syntactic relid sets. This was a mistake,
as it allowed join removal in cases where a reference to the
join output would survive in some syntactically-lower join
condition. Revert to the former coding.
Richard Guo
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/CAMbWs4-EU9uBGSP7G-iTwLBhRQ=rnZKvFDhD+n+xhajokyPCKg@mail.gmail.com
After applying outer-join identity 3 in the forward direction,
it was possible for the planner to mistakenly apply a qual clause
from above the two outer joins at the now-lower join level.
This can give the wrong answer, since a value that would get nulled
by the now-upper join might not yet be null.
To fix, when we perform such a transformation, consider that the
now-lower join hasn't really completed the outer join it's nominally
responsible for and thus its relid set should not include that OJ's
relid (nor should its output Vars have that nullingrel bit set).
Instead we add those bits when the now-upper join is performed.
The existing rules for qual placement then suffice to prevent
higher qual clauses from dropping below the now-upper join.
There are a few complications from needing to consider transitive
closures in case multiple pushdowns have happened, but all in all
it's not a very complex patch.
This is all new logic (from 2489d76c4) so no need to back-patch.
The added test cases all have the same results as in v15.
Tom Lane and Richard Guo
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/0b819232-4b50-f245-1c7d-c8c61bf41827@postgrespro.ru
