Ordered Append Node

I've been hacking on the idea of an Append node which maintains the ordering
of its subtables merging their records in order. This is important for
partitioned tables since otherwise a lot of plans are not available such as
merge joins.

The logic I've followed is to do as follows:

1) Go through all subrels asking for any interesting pathkey lists. Gather up
the union of all of these.

2) Go back through all the subrels and for each accumulated pathkey list ask
for the best path for that subrel for that pathkey list.

3) Generate an two append paths for each of these pathkey lists, one using the
best startup_cost subpath and one with the best total_cost subpath
available for the pathkey list for each child rel. If there is none
available take the best unordered path and put a sort node above it.

4) Additionally advertise the traditional unordered append node which our
parent could choose to put a sort node above same as ever.

5) Append plan nodes look a lot like Sort plan nodes glued onto an Append plan
node, with sort function oids and so on.

6) Append exec state nodes look a lot like a (a few fields from)
tuplesortstate glued onto an Append node. They have the ScanKey array and
the fmgr sort functions. They also have an array of TupleTableSlot and a
heap of indexes into that array.

8) ExecAppend does something similar to tuplesort's bounded sort (I fear I'm
going to get typecasted) or more to the point, similar to the final merge
of a merge sort. It directly returns the slot the child rel last returned
to it.

Open questions:

1) I still haven't completely figured out what to do with equivalence classes.
My hack of just stuffing all the append subrel vars into there seems to
work fine. I need to understand what's going on to see if there's really a
problem with it or not.

2) I'm not sure this code will work when the append rel is a target (ie UPDATE
and DELETE stmts).

3) It does seem to work when the columns in the subrels don't line up but I
didn't do anything special to handle this case.

4) I haven't handled mark/restore or random access. I think they could be
handled and they'll probably be worth the complexity but I'm not sure.

5) Is it considering too many paths? Are there some which maybe aren't worth
considering? For example, maybe it only makes sense to take best start_cost
paths since if that plan doesn't dominate then the best total_cost plan is
likely to be the sequential scans + unordered append + sort.

6) I haven't looked at setops yet but this is particularly attractive for the
UNION (as opposed to UNION ALL) case.

7) I copied/adapted a bunch of bits from tuplesort to maintain the heap and do
the scankey comparisons. I could refactor that code back into tuplesort but
it would mean twisting around tuplesort quite a bit. Essentially it would
mean introducing a new type of tuplesort which would start off in
FINAL_MERGE state only it would have to behave differently since we don't
want it prefetching lots of records like FINAL_MERGE does, I don't think.

Some example plans (though note that the first was with a lot of enable_*
parameters set to off).

QUERY PLAN
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Merge Join (cost=76.03..107.63 rows=12 width=12) (actual time=0.435..0.706 rows=11 loops=1)
Merge Cond: (public.z.i = x.i)
-> Append (cost=22.36..53.66 rows=12 width=8) (actual time=0.365..0.440 rows=12 loops=1)
-> Index Scan using zi on z (cost=0.00..8.27 rows=1 width=8) (actual time=0.089..0.091 rows=1 loops=1)
-> Index Scan using z1i on z1 z (cost=0.00..12.28 rows=2 width=8) (actual time=0.063..0.068 rows=2 loops=1)
-> Index Scan using z2i on z2 z (cost=0.00..12.30 rows=3 width=8) (actual time=0.060..0.066 rows=3 loops=1)
-> Index Scan using z3i on z3 z (cost=0.00..12.33 rows=5 width=8) (actual time=0.059..0.070 rows=5 loops=1)
-> Index Scan using zzi on zz z (cost=0.00..8.27 rows=1 width=8) (actual time=0.076..0.079 rows=1 loops=1)
-> Materialize (cost=53.67..53.79 rows=12 width=8) (actual time=0.051..0.170 rows=12 loops=1)
-> Append (cost=22.36..53.66 rows=12 width=8) (actual time=0.036..0.104 rows=12 loops=1)
-> Index Scan using zi on z x (cost=0.00..8.27 rows=1 width=8) (actual time=0.006..0.006 rows=1 loops=1)
-> Index Scan using z1i on z1 x (cost=0.00..12.28 rows=2 width=8) (actual time=0.004..0.009 rows=2 loops=1)
-> Index Scan using z2i on z2 x (cost=0.00..12.30 rows=3 width=8) (actual time=0.005..0.014 rows=3 loops=1)
-> Index Scan using z3i on z3 x (cost=0.00..12.33 rows=5 width=8) (actual time=0.004..0.016 rows=5 loops=1)
-> Index Scan using zzi on zz x (cost=0.00..8.27 rows=1 width=8) (actual time=0.005..0.008 rows=1 loops=1)
Total runtime: 0.951 ms

postgres=# explain analyze select * from t order by i limit 1;
QUERY PLAN
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Limit (cost=805.41..805.47 rows=1 width=4) (actual time=44.206..44.208 rows=1 loops=1)
-> Result (cost=805.41..18309.89 rows=290003 width=4) (actual time=44.201..44.201 rows=1 loops=1)
-> Append (cost=805.41..18309.89 rows=290003 width=4) (actual time=44.196..44.196 rows=1 loops=1)
-> Sort (cost=1.02..1.02 rows=1 width=4) (actual time=0.034..0.034 rows=1 loops=1)
Sort Key: public.t.i
Sort Method: quicksort Memory: 17kB
-> Seq Scan on t (cost=0.00..1.01 rows=1 width=4) (actual time=0.010..0.013 rows=1 loops=1)
-> Index Scan using ti1 on t1 t (cost=0.00..289.25 rows=10000 width=4) (actual time=0.033..0.033 rows=1 loops=1)
-> Index Scan using ti2 on t2 t (cost=0.00..289.25 rows=10000 width=4) (actual time=0.028..0.028 rows=1 loops=1)
-> Index Scan using ti3 on t3 t (cost=0.00..289.25 rows=10000 width=4) (actual time=0.027..0.027 rows=1 loops=1)
-> Index Scan using ti4 on t4 t (cost=0.00..289.25 rows=10000 width=4) (actual time=0.028..0.028 rows=1 loops=1)
-> Index Scan using ti5 on t5 t (cost=0.00..289.25 rows=10000 width=4) (actual time=0.028..0.028 rows=1 loops=1)
-> Index Scan using ti6 on t6 t (cost=0.00..289.25 rows=10000 width=4) (actual time=0.031..0.031 rows=1 loops=1)
-> Index Scan using ti7 on t7 t (cost=0.00..289.25 rows=10000 width=4) (actual time=0.027..0.027 rows=1 loops=1)
-> Index Scan using ti8 on t8 t (cost=0.00..289.25 rows=10000 width=4) (actual time=0.027..0.027 rows=1 loops=1)
-> Index Scan using ti9 on t9 t (cost=0.00..289.25 rows=10000 width=4) (actual time=0.028..0.028 rows=1 loops=1)
-> Index Scan using ti0 on t0 t (cost=0.00..289.27 rows=10001 width=4) (actual time=0.027..0.027 rows=1 loops=1)
-> Index Scan using ti11 on t11 t (cost=0.00..289.25 rows=10000 width=4) (actual time=0.027..0.027 rows=1 loops=1)
-> Index Scan using ti12 on t12 t (cost=0.00..289.25 rows=10000 width=4) (actual time=0.027..0.027 rows=1 loops=1)
-> Index Scan using ti13 on t13 t (cost=0.00..289.25 rows=10000 width=4) (actual time=0.028..0.028 rows=1 loops=1)
-> Index Scan using ti14 on t14 t (cost=0.00..289.25 rows=10000 width=4) (actual time=0.027..0.027 rows=1 loops=1)
-> Index Scan using ti15 on t15 t (cost=0.00..289.25 rows=10000 width=4) (actual time=0.027..0.027 rows=1 loops=1)
-> Index Scan using ti16 on t16 t (cost=0.00..289.25 rows=10000 width=4) (actual time=0.027..0.027 rows=1 loops=1)
-> Index Scan using ti17 on t17 t (cost=0.00..289.25 rows=10000 width=4) (actual time=0.028..0.028 rows=1 loops=1)
-> Index Scan using ti18 on t18 t (cost=0.00..289.25 rows=10000 width=4) (actual time=0.027..0.027 rows=1 loops=1)
-> Index Scan using ti19 on t19 t (cost=0.00..289.25 rows=10000 width=4) (actual time=0.027..0.027 rows=1 loops=1)
-> Index Scan using ti20 on t20 t (cost=0.00..289.27 rows=10001 width=4) (actual time=0.027..0.027 rows=1 loops=1)
-> Index Scan using ti21 on t21 t (cost=0.00..739.76 rows=20000 width=4) (actual time=0.028..0.028 rows=1 loops=1)
-> Index Scan using ti22 on t22 t (cost=0.00..289.25 rows=10000 width=4) (actual time=0.027..0.027 rows=1 loops=1)
-> Index Scan using ti23 on t23 t (cost=0.00..289.25 rows=10000 width=4) (actual time=0.036..0.036 rows=1 loops=1)
-> Index Scan using ti24 on t24 t (cost=0.00..289.25 rows=10000 width=4) (actual time=0.027..0.027 rows=1 loops=1)
-> Index Scan using ti26 on t26 t (cost=0.00..289.25 rows=10000 width=4) (actual time=0.027..0.027 rows=1 loops=1)
-> Index Scan using ti27 on t27 t (cost=0.00..289.25 rows=10000 width=4) (actual time=0.027..0.027 rows=1 loops=1)
-> Index Scan using ti28 on t28 t (cost=0.00..289.25 rows=10000 width=4) (actual time=0.027..0.027 rows=1 loops=1)
-> Sort (cost=804.39..829.39 rows=10000 width=4) (actual time=43.336..43.336 rows=1 loops=1)
Sort Key: public.t.i
Sort Method: quicksort Memory: 647kB
-> Seq Scan on t29 t (cost=0.00..140.00 rows=10000 width=4) (actual time=0.017..21.192 rows=10000 loops=1)
Total runtime: 44.737 ms

--
Gregory Stark
EnterpriseDB http://www.enterprisedb.com
Ask me about EnterpriseDB's PostGIS support!