| Age | Commit message (Collapse) | Author |
|---|
|
For several types of plan nodes that use TupleHashTables, the
planner estimated the expected size of the table as basically
numEntries * (MAXALIGN(dataWidth) + MAXALIGN(SizeofHeapTupleHeader)).
This is pretty far off, especially for small data widths, because
it doesn't account for the overhead of the simplehash.h hash table
nor for any per-tuple "additional space" the plan node may request.
Jeff Janes noted a case where the estimate was off by about a factor
of three, even though the obvious hazards such as inaccurate estimates
of numEntries or dataWidth didn't apply.
To improve matters, create functions provided by the relevant executor
modules that can estimate the required sizes with reasonable accuracy.
(We're still not accounting for effects like allocator padding, but
this at least gets the first-order effects correct.)
I added functions that can estimate the tuple table sizes for
nodeSetOp and nodeSubplan; these rely on an estimator for
TupleHashTables in general, and that in turn relies on one for
simplehash.h hash tables. That feels like kind of a lot of mechanism,
but if we take any short-cuts we're violating modularity boundaries.
The other places that use TupleHashTables are nodeAgg, which took
pains to get its numbers right already, and nodeRecursiveunion.
I did not try to improve the situation for nodeRecursiveunion because
there's nothing to improve: we are not making an estimate of the hash
table size, and it wouldn't help us to do so because we have no
non-hashed alternative implementation. On top of that, our estimate
of the number of entries to be hashed in that module is so suspect
that we'd likely often choose the wrong implementation if we did have
two ways to do it.
Reported-by: Jeff Janes <jeff.janes@gmail.com>
Author: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Reviewed-by: David Rowley <dgrowleyml@gmail.com>
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/CAMkU=1zia0JfW_QR8L5xA2vpa0oqVuiapm78h=WpNsHH13_9uw@mail.gmail.com
|
|
Backpatch-through: 13
|
|
Reported-by: Michael Paquier
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/ZZKTDPxBBMt3C0J9@paquier.xyz
Backpatch-through: 12
|
|
Backpatch-through: 11
|
|
Backpatch-through: 10
|
|
Backpatch-through: 9.5
|
|
Backpatch-through: update all files in master, backpatch legal files through 9.4
|
|
Backpatch-through: certain files through 9.4
|
|
Backpatch-through: certain files through 9.3
|
|
This allows us to add stack-depth checks the first time an executor
node is called, and skip that overhead on following
calls. Additionally it yields a nice speedup.
While it'd probably have been a good idea to have that check all
along, it has become more important after the new expression
evaluation framework in b8d7f053c5c2bf2a7e - there's no stack depth
check in common paths anymore now. We previously relied on
ExecEvalExpr() being executed somewhere.
We should move towards that model for further routines, but as this is
required for v10, it seems better to only do the necessary (which
already is quite large).
Author: Andres Freund, Tom Lane
Reported-By: Julien Rouhaud
Discussion:
https://postgr.es/m/22833.1490390175@sss.pgh.pa.us
https://postgr.es/m/b0af9eaa-130c-60d0-9e4e-7a135b1e0c76@dalibo.com
|
|
Change pg_bsd_indent to follow upstream rules for placement of comments
to the right of code, and remove pgindent hack that caused comments
following #endif to not obey the general rule.
Commit e3860ffa4dd0dad0dd9eea4be9cc1412373a8c89 wasn't actually using
the published version of pg_bsd_indent, but a hacked-up version that
tried to minimize the amount of movement of comments to the right of
code. The situation of interest is where such a comment has to be
moved to the right of its default placement at column 33 because there's
code there. BSD indent has always moved right in units of tab stops
in such cases --- but in the previous incarnation, indent was working
in 8-space tab stops, while now it knows we use 4-space tabs. So the
net result is that in about half the cases, such comments are placed
one tab stop left of before. This is better all around: it leaves
more room on the line for comment text, and it means that in such
cases the comment uniformly starts at the next 4-space tab stop after
the code, rather than sometimes one and sometimes two tabs after.
Also, ensure that comments following #endif are indented the same
as comments following other preprocessor commands such as #else.
That inconsistency turns out to have been self-inflicted damage
from a poorly-thought-through post-indent "fixup" in pgindent.
This patch is much less interesting than the first round of indent
changes, but also bulkier, so I thought it best to separate the effects.
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/E1dAmxK-0006EE-1r@gemulon.postgresql.org
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/30527.1495162840@sss.pgh.pa.us
|
|
|
|
Backpatch certain files through 9.1
|
|
Backpatch certain files through 9.0
|
|
Update all files in head, and files COPYRIGHT and legal.sgml in all back
branches.
|
|
Fully update git head, and update back branches in ./COPYRIGHT and
legal.sgml files.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
relation using the general PARAM_EXEC executor parameter mechanism, rather
than the ad-hoc kluge of passing the outer tuple down through ExecReScan.
The previous method was hard to understand and could never be extended to
handle parameters coming from multiple join levels. This patch doesn't
change the set of possible plans nor have any significant performance effect,
but it's necessary infrastructure for future generalization of the concept
of an inner indexscan plan.
ExecReScan's second parameter is now unused, so it's removed.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
back-stamped for this.
|
|
|
|
bits indicating which optional capabilities can actually be exercised
at runtime. This will allow Sort and Material nodes, and perhaps later
other nodes, to avoid unnecessary overhead in common cases.
This commit just adds the infrastructure and arranges to pass the correct
flag values down to plan nodes; none of the actual optimizations are here
yet. I'm committing this separately in case anyone wants to measure the
added overhead. (It should be negligible.)
Simon Riggs and Tom Lane
|
|
Also performed an initial run through of upgrading our Copyright date to
extend to 2005 ... first run here was very simple ... change everything
where: grep 1996-2004 && the word 'Copyright' ... scanned through the
generated list with 'less' first, and after, to make sure that I only
picked up the right entries ...
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
to plan nodes, not vice-versa. All executor state nodes now inherit from
struct PlanState. Copying of plan trees has been simplified by not
storing a list of SubPlans in Plan nodes (eliminating duplicate links).
The executor still needs such a list, but it can build it during
ExecutorStart since it has to scan the plan tree anyway.
No initdb forced since no stored-on-disk structures changed, but you
will need a full recompile because of node-numbering changes.
|
|
|
|
initdb/regression tests pass.
|
|
spacing. Also adds space for one-line comments.
|
|
tests pass.
|
|
|
|
SQL92 semantics, including support for ALL option. All three can be used
in subqueries and views. DISTINCT and ORDER BY work now in views, too.
This rewrite fixes many problems with cross-datatype UNIONs and INSERT/SELECT
where the SELECT yields different datatypes than the INSERT needs. I did
that by making UNION subqueries and SELECT in INSERT be treated like
subselects-in-FROM, thereby allowing an extra level of targetlist where the
datatype conversions can be inserted safely.
INITDB NEEDED!
|
