From: Antonin Houska <ah@cybertec.at>
To: Etsuro Fujita <fujita.etsuro@lab.ntt.co.jp>
Cc: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Cc: Andrew Gierth <andrew@tao11.riddles.org.uk>
Cc: pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org
Subject: Re: Problems with plan estimates in postgres_fdw
Date: Fri, 01 Mar 2019 12:00:41 +0100
Message-ID: <7273.1551438041@localhost> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <5C73C403.7080109@lab.ntt.co.jp>
References: <87pnz1aby9.fsf@news-spur.riddles.org.uk>
<1175.1533220908@sss.pgh.pa.us>
<5BB739CD.6040002@lab.ntt.co.jp>
<5BBC4140.50403@lab.ntt.co.jp>
<5C17A00E.5000005@lab.ntt.co.jp>
<5C232F39.9060509@lab.ntt.co.jp>
<5C25C7B5.2010802@lab.ntt.co.jp>
<5C518631.5080401@lab.ntt.co.jp>
<10994.1549559088@localhost>
<5C5D778F.3080501@lab.ntt.co.jp>
<19433.1549962210@localhost>
<5C669DFD.30002@lab.ntt.co.jp>
<16616.1550234762@localhost>
<5C6A5FD3.8080102@lab.ntt.co.jp>
<30524.1550499671@localhost>
<5C6BBD7A.1030702@lab.ntt.co.jp>
<29190.1550843669@localhost>
<5C73C403.7080109@lab.ntt.co.jp>
Etsuro Fujita <fujita.etsuro@lab.ntt.co.jp> wrote:
> (2019/02/22 22:54), Antonin Houska wrote:
> > Etsuro Fujita<fujita.etsuro@lab.ntt.co.jp> wrote:
> >> On the other hand, the code bit added by
> >> 0001-postgres_fdw-Perform-UPPERREL_ORDERED-step-remotely-v3.patch handles the
> >> case where a post-scan/join processing step other than grouping/aggregation
> >> (ie, the final sort or LIMIT/OFFSET) is performed directly on a base or join
> >> relation, as in the LIMIT example. So, the two changes are handling different
> >> cases, hence both changes would be required.
> >
> > Do you mean this part?
>
> No, I don't. What I meant was this part:
>
> + /*
> + * If this is an UPPERREL_ORDERED step performed on the final
> + * scan/join relation, the costs obtained from the cache wouldn't yet
> + * contain the eval costs for the final scan/join target, which would
> + * have been updated by apply_scanjoin_target_to_paths(); add the eval
> + * costs now.
> + */
> + if (fpextra && !IS_UPPER_REL(foreignrel))
> + {
> + /* The costs should have been obtained from the cache. */
> + Assert(fpinfo->rel_startup_cost >= 0 &&
> + fpinfo->rel_total_cost >= 0);
> +
> + startup_cost += foreignrel->reltarget->cost.startup;
> + run_cost += foreignrel->reltarget->cost.per_tuple * rows;
> + }
> Yeah, but I think the code bit cited above is needed. Let me explain using
> yet another example with grouping and ordering:
>
> SELECT a+b, random() FROM foreign_table GROUP BY a+b ORDER BY a+b;
>
> For this query, the sort_input_target would be {a+b}, (to which the
> foreignrel->reltarget would have been set when called from
> estimate_path_cost_size() called from postgresGetForeignUpperPaths() with the
> UPPERREL_ORDERED stage), but the final target would be {a+b, random()}, so the
> sort_input_target isn't the same as the final target in that case; the costs
> needs to be adjusted so that the costs include the ones of generating the
> final target. That's the reason why I added the code bit you cited.
I used gdb to help me understand, however the condition
if (fpextra && !IS_UPPER_REL(foreignrel))
never evaluated to true with the query above. fpextra was only !=NULL when
estimate_path_cost_size() was called from add_foreign_ordered_paths(), but at
the same time foreignrel->reloptkind was RELOPT_UPPER_REL.
It's still unclear to me why add_foreign_ordered_paths() passes the input
relation (input_rel) to estimate_path_cost_size(). If it passed the output rel
(i.e. ordered_rel in this case) like add_foreign_grouping_paths() does, then
foreignrel->reltarget should contain the random() function. (What I see now is
that create_ordered_paths() leaves ordered_rel->reltarget empty, but that's
another problem to be fixed.)
Do you still see a reason to call estimate_path_cost_size() this way?
> > Note about the !activeWindows test: It occurs me now that no paths should be
> > added to UPPERREL_ORDERED relation if the query needs WindowAgg node, because
> > postgres_fdw currently cannot handle UPPERREL_WINDOW relation. Or rather in
> > general, the FDW should not skip any stage just because it doesn't know how to
> > build the paths.
>
> That's right. In postgres_fdw, by the following code in
> postgresGetForeignUpperPaths(), we will give up on doing the UPPERREL_ORDERED
> step remotely, if the query has the UPPERREL_WINDOW (and/or UPPERREL_DISTINCT)
> steps, because in that case we would have input_rel->fdw_private=NULL for a
> call to postgresGetForeignUpperPaths() with the UPPERREL_ORDERED stage:
>
> /*
> * If input rel is not safe to pushdown, then simply return as we cannot
> * perform any post-join operations on the foreign server.
> */
> if (!input_rel->fdw_private ||
> !((PgFdwRelationInfo *) input_rel->fdw_private)->pushdown_safe)
> return;
I understand now: if FDW did not handle the previous stage, then
input_rel->fdw_private is NULL.
--
Antonin Houska
https://www.cybertec-postgresql.com
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Reply to all the recipients using the --to and --cc options:
reply via email
To: pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org
Cc: ah@cybertec.at, fujita.etsuro@lab.ntt.co.jp, tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us, andrew@tao11.riddles.org.uk
Subject: Re: Problems with plan estimates in postgres_fdw
In-Reply-To: <7273.1551438041@localhost>
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
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