pg.ddx.io  pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org mailing list archive  
help / color / mirror / Atom feed
postgres_fdw: estimate_path_cost_size fails to re-use cached costs
3+ messages / 1 participants
[nested] [flat]

* postgres_fdw: estimate_path_cost_size fails to re-use cached costs
@ 2019-01-25 11:33 Etsuro Fujita <fujita.etsuro@lab.ntt.co.jp>
  2019-01-28 10:37 ` Re: postgres_fdw: estimate_path_cost_size fails to re-use cached costs Etsuro Fujita <fujita.etsuro@lab.ntt.co.jp>
  0 siblings, 1 reply; 3+ messages in thread

From: Etsuro Fujita @ 2019-01-25 11:33 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: pgsql-hackers

Hi,

I noticed yet another thing while updating the patch for pushing down
ORDER BY LIMIT.  Let me explain.  When costing foreign paths on the
basis of local statistics, we calculate/cache the costs of an unsorted
foreign path, and re-use them to estimate the costs of presorted foreign
paths, as shown below.  BUT: we fail to re-use them for some typical
queries, such as "select * from ft1 order by a", due to
fpinfo->rel_startup_cost=0, leading to doing the same cost calculation
repeatedly.

        /*
         * We will come here again and again with different set of pathkeys
         * that caller wants to cost. We don't need to calculate the cost of
         * bare scan each time. Instead, use the costs if we have cached
them
         * already.
         */
        if (fpinfo->rel_startup_cost > 0 && fpinfo->rel_total_cost > 0)
        {
            startup_cost = fpinfo->rel_startup_cost;
            run_cost = fpinfo->rel_total_cost - fpinfo->rel_startup_cost;
        }

I think we should use "fpinfo->rel_startup_cost >= 0" here, not
"fpinfo->rel_startup_cost > 0".  Also, it would be possible that the
total cost calculated is zero in corner cases (eg, seq_page_cost=0 and
cpu_tuple_cost=0 for the example), so I think we should change the total
cost part as well.  Attached is a patch for that.

Best regards,
Etsuro Fujita

Attachments:

yet-another-fix-for-estimate_path_cost_size.patch (text/x-patch, 752B) download *** a/contrib/postgres_fdw/postgres_fdw.c --- b/contrib/postgres_fdw/postgres_fdw.c *************** *** 2625,2631 **** estimate_path_cost_size(PlannerInfo *root, * bare scan each time. Instead, use the costs if we have cached them * already. */ ! if (fpinfo->rel_startup_cost > 0 && fpinfo->rel_total_cost > 0) { startup_cost = fpinfo->rel_startup_cost; run_cost = fpinfo->rel_total_cost - fpinfo->rel_startup_cost; --- 2625,2631 ---- * bare scan each time. Instead, use the costs if we have cached them * already. */ ! if (fpinfo->rel_startup_cost >= 0 && fpinfo->rel_total_cost >= 0) { startup_cost = fpinfo->rel_startup_cost; run_cost = fpinfo->rel_total_cost - fpinfo->rel_startup_cost;
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 3+ messages in thread

* Re: postgres_fdw: estimate_path_cost_size fails to re-use cached costs
  2019-01-25 11:33 postgres_fdw: estimate_path_cost_size fails to re-use cached costs Etsuro Fujita <fujita.etsuro@lab.ntt.co.jp>
@ 2019-01-28 10:37 ` Etsuro Fujita <fujita.etsuro@lab.ntt.co.jp>
  2019-01-29 03:33   ` Re: postgres_fdw: estimate_path_cost_size fails to re-use cached costs Etsuro Fujita <fujita.etsuro@lab.ntt.co.jp>
  0 siblings, 1 reply; 3+ messages in thread

From: Etsuro Fujita @ 2019-01-28 10:37 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: pgsql-hackers

(2019/01/25 20:33), Etsuro Fujita wrote:
> I noticed yet another thing while updating the patch for pushing down
> ORDER BY LIMIT.  Let me explain.  When costing foreign paths on the
> basis of local statistics, we calculate/cache the costs of an unsorted
> foreign path, and re-use them to estimate the costs of presorted foreign
> paths, as shown below.  BUT: we fail to re-use them for some typical
> queries, such as "select * from ft1 order by a", due to
> fpinfo->rel_startup_cost=0, leading to doing the same cost calculation
> repeatedly.
> 
>          /*
>           * We will come here again and again with different set of pathkeys
>           * that caller wants to cost. We don't need to calculate the cost of
>           * bare scan each time. Instead, use the costs if we have cached
> them
>           * already.
>           */
>          if (fpinfo->rel_startup_cost>  0&&  fpinfo->rel_total_cost>  0)
>          {
>              startup_cost = fpinfo->rel_startup_cost;
>              run_cost = fpinfo->rel_total_cost - fpinfo->rel_startup_cost;
>          }
> 
> I think we should use "fpinfo->rel_startup_cost>= 0" here, not
> "fpinfo->rel_startup_cost>  0".  Also, it would be possible that the
> total cost calculated is zero in corner cases (eg, seq_page_cost=0 and
> cpu_tuple_cost=0 for the example), so I think we should change the total
> cost part as well.  Attached is a patch for that.

I added the commit message.  Updated patch attached.  If no objections,
I'll apply that to HEAD only as there are no reports of actual trouble
from this, as far as I know.

Best regards,
Etsuro Fujita

Attachments:

0001-postgres_fdw-Fix-test-for-cached-costs-in-estimate_p.patch (text/x-patch, 1.3K) download From 24b84c230434e3dec6b20b47a859b834fbaabfd3 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: Etsuro Fujita <efujita@postgresql.org> Date: Mon, 28 Jan 2019 19:33:46 +0900 Subject: [PATCH] postgres_fdw: Fix test for cached costs in estimate_path_cost_size(). estimate_path_cost_size() failed to re-use cached costs when the cached startup/total cost was 0, so it calculated the costs redundantly. This is an oversight in commit aa09cd242f; but apply the patch to HEAD only because there are no reports of actual trouble from that. Author: Etsuro Fujita Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/5C4AF3F3.4060409%40lab.ntt.co.jp --- contrib/postgres_fdw/postgres_fdw.c | 2 +- 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-) diff --git a/contrib/postgres_fdw/postgres_fdw.c b/contrib/postgres_fdw/postgres_fdw.c index 9244fe7571..1a88919cfc 100644 --- a/contrib/postgres_fdw/postgres_fdw.c +++ b/contrib/postgres_fdw/postgres_fdw.c @@ -2625,7 +2625,7 @@ estimate_path_cost_size(PlannerInfo *root, * bare scan each time. Instead, use the costs if we have cached them * already. */ - if (fpinfo->rel_startup_cost > 0 && fpinfo->rel_total_cost > 0) + if (fpinfo->rel_startup_cost >= 0 && fpinfo->rel_total_cost >= 0) { startup_cost = fpinfo->rel_startup_cost; run_cost = fpinfo->rel_total_cost - fpinfo->rel_startup_cost; -- 2.19.2
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 3+ messages in thread

* Re: postgres_fdw: estimate_path_cost_size fails to re-use cached costs
  2019-01-25 11:33 postgres_fdw: estimate_path_cost_size fails to re-use cached costs Etsuro Fujita <fujita.etsuro@lab.ntt.co.jp>
  2019-01-28 10:37 ` Re: postgres_fdw: estimate_path_cost_size fails to re-use cached costs Etsuro Fujita <fujita.etsuro@lab.ntt.co.jp>
@ 2019-01-29 03:33   ` Etsuro Fujita <fujita.etsuro@lab.ntt.co.jp>
  0 siblings, 0 replies; 3+ messages in thread

From: Etsuro Fujita @ 2019-01-29 03:33 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: pgsql-hackers

(2019/01/28 19:37), Etsuro Fujita wrote:
> (2019/01/25 20:33), Etsuro Fujita wrote:
>> I noticed yet another thing while updating the patch for pushing down
>> ORDER BY LIMIT.  Let me explain.  When costing foreign paths on the
>> basis of local statistics, we calculate/cache the costs of an unsorted
>> foreign path, and re-use them to estimate the costs of presorted foreign
>> paths, as shown below.  BUT: we fail to re-use them for some typical
>> queries, such as "select * from ft1 order by a", due to
>> fpinfo->rel_startup_cost=0, leading to doing the same cost calculation
>> repeatedly.
>>
>>           /*
>>            * We will come here again and again with different set of pathkeys
>>            * that caller wants to cost. We don't need to calculate the cost of
>>            * bare scan each time. Instead, use the costs if we have cached
>> them
>>            * already.
>>            */
>>           if (fpinfo->rel_startup_cost>   0&&   fpinfo->rel_total_cost>   0)
>>           {
>>               startup_cost = fpinfo->rel_startup_cost;
>>               run_cost = fpinfo->rel_total_cost - fpinfo->rel_startup_cost;
>>           }
>>
>> I think we should use "fpinfo->rel_startup_cost>= 0" here, not
>> "fpinfo->rel_startup_cost>   0".  Also, it would be possible that the
>> total cost calculated is zero in corner cases (eg, seq_page_cost=0 and
>> cpu_tuple_cost=0 for the example), so I think we should change the total
>> cost part as well.  Attached is a patch for that.
> 
> I added the commit message.  Updated patch attached.  If no objections,
> I'll apply that to HEAD only as there are no reports of actual trouble
> from this, as far as I know.

Pushed.

Best regards,
Etsuro Fujita





^ permalink  raw  reply  [nested|flat] 3+ messages in thread


end of thread, other threads:[~2019-01-29 03:33 UTC | newest]

Thread overview: 3+ messages (download: mbox mbox.gz follow: Atom feed)
-- links below jump to the message on this page --
2019-01-25 11:33 postgres_fdw: estimate_path_cost_size fails to re-use cached costs Etsuro Fujita <fujita.etsuro@lab.ntt.co.jp>
2019-01-28 10:37 ` Etsuro Fujita <fujita.etsuro@lab.ntt.co.jp>
2019-01-29 03:33   ` Etsuro Fujita <fujita.etsuro@lab.ntt.co.jp>

This inbox is served by DDX for PostgreSQL; see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox