Received: from malur.postgresql.org ([217.196.149.56]) by arkaria.postgresql.org with esmtps (TLS1.3:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.92) (envelope-from ) id 1jJtkg-0002t2-Vt for pgsql-hackers@arkaria.postgresql.org; Thu, 02 Apr 2020 06:54:58 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=malur.postgresql.org) by malur.postgresql.org with esmtp (Exim 4.92) (envelope-from ) id 1jJtke-0004b1-Ly for pgsql-hackers@arkaria.postgresql.org; Thu, 02 Apr 2020 06:54:56 +0000 Received: from makus.postgresql.org ([2001:4800:3e1:1::229]) by malur.postgresql.org with esmtps (TLS1.3:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.92) (envelope-from ) id 1jJtiB-00074f-NP for pgsql-hackers@lists.postgresql.org; Thu, 02 Apr 2020 06:52:23 +0000 Received: from oss.nttdata.com ([49.212.34.109]) by makus.postgresql.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.92) (envelope-from ) id 1jJti9-0004sv-0S for pgsql-hackers@lists.postgresql.org; Thu, 02 Apr 2020 06:52:22 +0000 Received: from hnk.local (p2421237-ipbf2725funabasi.chiba.ocn.ne.jp [122.24.33.237]) by oss.nttdata.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 9416B60530; Thu, 2 Apr 2020 15:52:17 +0900 (JST) X-Virus-Status: Clean X-Virus-Scanned: clamav-milter 0.102.2 at oss.nttdata.com Subject: Re: BUG #16109: Postgres planning time is high across version (Expose buffer usage during planning in EXPLAIN) To: Julien Rouhaud Cc: Justin Pryzby , Andres Freund , PostgreSQL Hackers References: <16109-26a1a88651e90608@postgresql.org> <20191112205506.rvadbx2dnku3paaw@alap3.anarazel.de> <20200124055534.GM13621@telsasoft.com> <20200331013146.GA14618@telsasoft.com> <7bdd1e99-335f-a24a-ffbd-8a578a761970@oss.nttdata.com> <045faedf-108d-26e6-7307-ab1ac2d64624@oss.nttdata.com> <20200402060154.gylqmvwdbes5s5ni@nol> From: Fujii Masao Message-ID: <0abcbb8f-5b96-da04-ad7d-b84c36d09dd0@oss.nttdata.com> Date: Thu, 2 Apr 2020 15:52:17 +0900 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.14; rv:68.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/68.6.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <20200402060154.gylqmvwdbes5s5ni@nol> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed Content-Language: en-US Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit List-Id: List-Help: List-Subscribe: List-Post: List-Owner: List-Archive: Precedence: bulk On 2020/04/02 15:01, Julien Rouhaud wrote: > On Thu, Apr 02, 2020 at 01:05:56PM +0900, Fujii Masao wrote: >> >> >> On 2020/04/02 3:47, Julien Rouhaud wrote: >>> On Wed, Apr 1, 2020 at 7:51 PM Fujii Masao wrote: >>>> >>>> >>>> On 2020/03/31 10:31, Justin Pryzby wrote: >>>>> On Wed, Jan 29, 2020 at 12:15:59PM +0100, Julien Rouhaud wrote: >>>>>> Rebase due to conflict with 3ec20c7091e97. >>>>> >>>>> This is failing to apply probably since 4a539a25ebfc48329fd656a95f3c1eb2cda38af3. >>>>> Could you rebase? (Also, not sure if this can be set as RFC?) >>>> >>>> I updated the patch. Attached. >>> >>> Thanks a lot! I'm sorry I missed Justin's ping, and it I just >>> realized that my cron job that used to warn me about cfbot failure was >>> broken :( >>> >>>> +/* Compute the difference between two BufferUsage */ >>>> +BufferUsage >>>> +ComputeBufferCounters(BufferUsage *start, BufferUsage *stop) >>>> >>>> Since BufferUsageAccumDiff() was exported, ComputeBufferCounters() is >>>> no longer necessary. In the patched version, BufferUsageAccumDiff() is >>>> used to calculate the difference of buffer usage. >>> >>> Indeed, exposing BufferUsageAccumDiff wa definitely a good thing! >>> >>>> + if (es->summary && (planduration || es->buffers)) >>>> + ExplainOpenGroup("Planning", "Planning", true, es); >>>> >>>> Isn't it more appropriate to check "bufusage" instead of "es->buffers" here? >>>> The patch changes the code so that "bufusage" is checked. >>> >>> AFAICS not unless ExplainOneQuery is also changed to pass a NULL >>> pointer if the BUFFER option wasn't provided (and maybe also >>> optionally skip the planning buffer computation). With this version >>> you now get: >>> >>> =# explain (analyze, buffers off) update t1 set id = id; >>> QUERY PLAN >>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- >>> Update on t1 (cost=0.00..22.70 rows=1270 width=42) (actual >>> time=0.170..0.170 rows=0 loops=1) >>> -> Seq Scan on t1 (cost=0.00..22.70 rows=1270 width=42) (actual >>> time=0.050..0.054 rows=1 loops=1) >>> Planning Time: 1.461 ms >>> Buffers: shared hit=25 >>> Execution Time: 1.071 ms >>> (5 rows) >>> >>> which seems wrong to me. >>> >>> I reused the es->buffers to avoid having needing something like: >> >> Yes, you're right! So I updated the patch as you suggested. >> Attached is the updated version of the patch. >> Thanks for the review! > > > Thanks a lot, it all looks good to me! Thanks! Barring any objection, I will commit the latest version of the patch. Regards, -- Fujii Masao Advanced Computing Technology Center Research and Development Headquarters NTT DATA CORPORATION