Re: Should consider materializing the cheapest inner path in consider_parallel_nestloop()

From: Richard Guo <guofenglinux(at)gmail(dot)com>
To: Tender Wang <tndrwang(at)gmail(dot)com>
Cc: Tomasz Rybak <tomasz(dot)rybak(at)post(dot)pl>, pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org, robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com, David Rowley <dgrowleyml(at)gmail(dot)com>
Subject: Re: Should consider materializing the cheapest inner path in consider_parallel_nestloop()
Date: 2024-06-18 09:24:05
Message-ID: CAMbWs48TaubitHF+JXqysbSHLCzTLOU9PD3zpLGFUtizsonAMA@mail.gmail.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On Tue, Jun 4, 2024 at 6:51 PM Tender Wang <tndrwang(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> Yeah, Richard commented the v1 patch about JOIN_UNIQUE_INNER in [1]
>
> * I think we should not consider materializing the cheapest inner path
> if we're doing JOIN_UNIQUE_INNER, because in this case we have to
> unique-ify the inner path.
>
> We don't consider material inner path if jointype is JOIN_UNIQUE_INNER in match_unsorted_order().
> So here is as same logic as match_unsorted_order(). I added comments to explain why.

I looked through the v4 patch and found an issue. For the plan diff:

+ -> Nested Loop
+ -> Parallel Seq Scan on prt1_p1 t1_1
+ -> Materialize
+ -> Sample Scan on prt1_p1 t2_1
+ Sampling: system (t1_1.a) REPEATABLE (t1_1.b)
+ Filter: (t1_1.a = a)

This does not seem correct to me. The inner path is parameterized by
the outer rel, in which case it does not make sense to add a Materialize
node on top of it.

I updated the patch to include a check in consider_parallel_nestloop
ensuring that inner_cheapest_total is not parameterized by outerrel
before materializing it. I also tweaked the comments, test cases and
commit message.

Thanks
Richard

Attachment Content-Type Size
v5-0001-Consider-materializing-the-cheapest-inner-path-in-parallel-nestloop.patch application/octet-stream 4.9 KB

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Ashutosh Bapat 2024-06-18 09:49:41 Re: Is creating logical replication slots in template databases useful at all?
Previous Message Matthias van de Meent 2024-06-18 09:14:45 Re: [PATCH] Improve error message when trying to lock virtual tuple.