Re: Custom/Foreign-Join-APIs (Re: [v9.5] Custom Plan API)

> On Sat, Mar 14, 2015 at 3:48 AM, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
>
>
> On Fri, Mar 13, 2015 at 2:31 PM, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
> > Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
> >> Another bit of this that I think we could commit without fretting
> >> about it too much is the code adding set_join_pathlist_hook. This
> is
> >> - I think - analogous to set_rel_pathlist_hook, and like that hook,
> >> could be used for other purposes than custom plan generation - e.g.
> to
> >> delete paths we do not want to use. I've extracted this portion of
> >> the patch and adjusted the comments; if there are no objections, I
> >> will commit this bit also.
> >
> > I don't object to the concept, but I think that is a pretty bad place
> > to put the hook call: add_paths_to_joinrel is typically called multiple
> > (perhaps *many*) times per joinrel and thus this placement would force
> > any user of the hook to do a lot of repetitive work.
>
> Interesting point. I guess the question is whether a some or all
> callers are going to actually *want* a separate call for each
> invocation of add_paths_to_joinrel(), or whether they'll be happy to
> operate on the otherwise-complete path list. It's true that if your
> goal is to delete paths, it's probably best to be called just once
> after the path list is complete, and there might be a use case for
> that, but I guess it's less useful than for baserels. For a baserel,
> as long as you don't nuke the sequential-scan path, there is always
> going to be a way to complete the plan; so this would be a fine way to
> implement a disable-an-index extension. But for joinrels, it's not so
> easy to rule out, say, a hash-join here. Neither hook placement is
> much good for that; the path you want to get rid of may have already
> dominated paths you want to keep.
>
> Suppose you want to add paths - e.g. you have an extension that goes
> and looks for a materialized view that matches this subtree of the
> query, and if it finds one, it substitutes a scan of the materialized
> view for a scan of the baserel. Or, as in KaiGai's case, you have an
> extension that can perform the whole join in GPU-land and produce the
> same results we would have gotten via normal execution. Either way,
> you want - and this is the central point of the whole patch here - to
> inject a scan path into a joinrel. It is not altogether obvious to me
> what the best placement for this is. In the materialized view case,
> you probably need a perfect match between the baserels in the view and
> the baserels in the joinrel to do anything. There's no point in
> re-checking that for every innerrels/outerrels combination. I don't
> know enough about the GPU case to reason about it intelligently; maybe
> KaiGai can comment.
>
> I think the foreign data wrapper join pushdown case, which also aims
> to substitute a scan for a join, is interesting to think about, even
> though it's likely to be handled by a new FDW method instead of via
> the hook. Where should the FDW method get called from? Currently,
> the FDW method in KaiGai's patch is GetForeignJoinPaths, and that gets
> called from add_paths_to_joinrel(). The patch at
> http://www.postgresql.org/message-id/CAEZqfEfy7p=uRpwN-Q-NNgzb8kwHbf
> qF82YSb9ztFZG7zN64Xw(at)mail(dot)gmail(dot)com
> uses that to implement join pushdown in postgres_fdw; if you have A
> JOIN B JOIN C all on server X, we'll notice that the join with A and B
> can be turned into a foreign scan on A JOIN B, and similarly for A-C
> and B-C. Then, if it turns out that the cheapest path for A-B is the
> foreign join, and the cheapest path for C is a foreign scan, we'll
> arrive at the idea of a foreign scan on A-B-C, and we'll realize the
> same thing in each of the other combinations as well. So, eventually
> the foreign join gets pushed down.
>
> But there's another possible approach: suppose that
> join_search_one_level, after considering left-sided and right-sided
> joins and after considering bushy joins, checks whether every relation
> it's got is from the same foreign server, and if so, asks that foreign
> server whether it would like to contribute any paths. Would that be
> better or worse? A disadvantage is that if you've got something like
> A LEFT JOIN B LEFT JOIN C LEFT JOIN D LEFT JOIN E LEFT JOIN F LEFT
> JOIN G LEFT JOIN H LEFT JOIN I but none of the joins can be pushed
> down (say, each join clause calls a non-pushdown-safe function) you'll
> end up examining a pile of joinrels - at every level of the join tree
> - and individually rejecting each one. With the
> build-it-up-incrementally approach, you'll figure that all out at
> level 2, and then after that there's nothing to do but give up
> quickly. On the other hand, I'm afraid the incremental approach might
> miss a trick: consider small LEFT JOIN (big INNER JOIN huge ON big.x =
> huge.x) ON small.y = big.y AND small.z = huge.z, where all three are
> foreign tables on the same server. If the output of the big/huge join
> is big, none of those paths are going to survive at level 2, but the
> overall join size might be very small, so we surely want a chance to
> recover at level 3. (We discussed test cases of this form quite a bit
> in the context of e2fa76d80ba571d4de8992de6386536867250474.)
>
>
>
>
> The real problem here, is that with FDW in picture, the "optimal substructure"
> property required by dynamic programming is broken. If A foreign join B foreign
> join C is optimal solution for problem A join B join C, A foreign join B is not
> necessarily optimal solution for subproblem A join B. While for local relations,
> PostgreSQL has to compute each two way join itself, and thus chooses the cheapest
> path for each two way join, FDW (esp. those working with real foreign servers)
> do not compute the joins in two-way fashion and don't need to choose the cheapest
> path for each two way join.
>
I cannot agree 100% because we cannot know whether A foreign join B foreign
join C is optimal than A join B join C. For example, if (A x B) is estimated
to generate O(N) rows but (A x B) x C is estimated to generate O(N x M) rows,
local join may be optimal to process the final stage.
Even if N-way remote join might be possible, we need to estimate the cost of
remote join for each level, and make a decision whether it shall be pushed-
down to the remote server based on the estimated cost.
The hooks location Tom suggested requires FDW to compute a foreign-scan path
for each joinrel during concentration of join combinations, but not multiple
times for each joinrel.

> A way to work around this is to leave the ForeignPaths (there can possibly be
> only one foreign path per join relation) in the joinrel without removing them.
> FDW should work on joining two relations if they have foreign paths in the list
> of paths, irrespective of whether the cheapest path is foreign join path or not.
> For the topmost joinrel, if the foreign path happens to be the cheapest one, the
> whole join tree will be pushed down.
>
> On the other thread implementing foreign join for postgres_fdw,
> postgresGetForeignJoinPaths(), is just looking at the cheapest path, which would
> cause the problem you have described above.
>
It might be an idea if foreign-scan path is not wiped out regardless of the
estimated cost, we will be able to construct an entirely remote-join path
even if intermediation path is expensive than local join.
A problem is, how to distinct these special paths from usual paths that are
eliminated on the previous stage once its path is more expensive.

Thanks,
--
NEC OSS Promotion Center / PG-Strom Project
KaiGai Kohei <kaigai(at)ak(dot)jp(dot)nec(dot)com>