BUG #16558: `AND FALSE` increases planning time of query on 2 tables with 1000 partitions to more than 7 seconds

Previous Topic Next Topic
 
classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
6 messages Options
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

BUG #16558: `AND FALSE` increases planning time of query on 2 tables with 1000 partitions to more than 7 seconds

apt.postgresql.org Repository Update
The following bug has been logged on the website:

Bug reference:      16558
Logged by:          Marcin Barczyński
Email address:      [hidden email]
PostgreSQL version: 12.3
Operating system:   Ubuntu 18.04.4 LTS
Description:        

PostgreSQL server version: 12.3

Consider the following setup of empty tables partitioned first by `key1` and
then by `key2`:

DROP TABLE IF EXISTS demo1 CASCADE;
DROP TABLE IF EXISTS demo2 CASCADE;

CREATE TABLE demo1(key1 BIGINT, key2 BIGINT) PARTITION BY RANGE(key1);
CREATE TABLE demo1_positive
        PARTITION OF demo1 FOR VALUES FROM (0) TO (MAXVALUE)
        PARTITION BY LIST (key2);
CREATE TABLE demo1_negative
        PARTITION OF demo1 FOR VALUES FROM (MINVALUE) TO (0)
        PARTITION BY LIST (key2);

CREATE TABLE demo2(key1 BIGINT, key2 BIGINT) PARTITION BY RANGE(key1);
CREATE TABLE demo2_positive
        PARTITION OF demo2 FOR VALUES FROM (0) TO (MAXVALUE)
        PARTITION BY LIST (key2);
CREATE TABLE demo2_negative
        PARTITION OF demo2 FOR VALUES FROM (MINVALUE) TO (0)
        PARTITION BY LIST (key2);

ALTER TABLE demo1_positive ADD CONSTRAINT demo1_positive_pk PRIMARY KEY
(key1, key2);
ALTER TABLE demo1_negative ADD CONSTRAINT demo1_negative_pk PRIMARY KEY
(key1, key2);
ALTER TABLE demo2_positive ADD CONSTRAINT demo2_positive_pk PRIMARY KEY
(key1, key2);
ALTER TABLE demo2_negative ADD CONSTRAINT demo2_negative_pk PRIMARY KEY
(key1, key2);

DO $$
DECLARE
    i   BIGINT;
BEGIN
    FOR i IN SELECT * FROM generate_series(0, 1024)
    LOOP
        EXECUTE 'CREATE TABLE demo1_positive_' || i || ' PARTITION OF
demo1_positive FOR VALUES IN (' || i || ');';
        EXECUTE 'CREATE TABLE demo1_negative_' || i || ' PARTITION OF
demo1_negative FOR VALUES IN (' || i || ');';
        EXECUTE 'CREATE TABLE demo2_positive_' || i || ' PARTITION OF
demo2_positive FOR VALUES IN (' || i || ');';
        EXECUTE 'CREATE TABLE demo2_negative_' || i || ' PARTITION OF
demo2_negative FOR VALUES IN (' || i || ');';
    END LOOP;
END$$;

ANALYZE demo1;
ANALYZE demo2;


Now, let's investigate the planning time of a query limited to a single
partition on both tables:

EXPLAIN ANALYZE
SELECT *
 FROM demo1
  JOIN demo2 ON demo1.key2 = demo2.key2
 WHERE demo1.key2 = 123
  AND demo2.key2 = 123
  AND FALSE;
                                     QUERY PLAN                            
       
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 Result  (cost=0.00..0.00 rows=0 width=32) (actual time=0.002..0.002 rows=0
loops=1)
   One-Time Filter: false
 Planning Time: 7113.014 ms
 Execution Time: 0.211 ms
(4 rows)


Planning time depends quadratically on the number of partitions:
- 1 partition: 0.686 ms
- 4 partitions:  0.689 ms
- 16 partitions: 1.574 ms
- 64 partitions: 15.325 ms
- 256 partitions: 213.275 ms
- 512 partitions: 1043.161 ms
- 1024 partitions: 7113.014 ms


Experimentally, I observed that removing `AND FALSE` condition vastly
increases the planning time:

EXPLAIN ANALYZE
SELECT *
 FROM demo1
  JOIN demo2 ON demo1.key2 = demo2.key2
 WHERE demo1.key2 = 123
  AND demo2.key2 = 123;
                                                                 QUERY PLAN
                                                               
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 Nested Loop  (cost=13.61..72.91 rows=324 width=32) (actual
time=0.011..0.011 rows=0 loops=1)
(...)
 Planning Time: 0.659 ms
 Execution Time: 0.120 ms
(22 rows)


I expected that `AND FALSE` condition would not increase the planning time.

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: BUG #16558: `AND FALSE` increases planning time of query on 2 tables with 1000 partitions to more than 7 seconds

Tom Lane-2
PG Bug reporting form <[hidden email]> writes:

> Consider the following setup of empty tables partitioned first by `key1` and
> then by `key2`:
> ...
> EXPLAIN ANALYZE
> SELECT *
>  FROM demo1
>   JOIN demo2 ON demo1.key2 = demo2.key2
>  WHERE demo1.key2 = 123
>   AND demo2.key2 = 123
>   AND FALSE;

What seems to be happening here is that expression simplification reduces
the WHERE clause to just constant-false, ie

SELECT * FROM demo1 JOIN demo2 ON demo1.key2 = demo2.key2 WHERE FALSE;

and then, because there are no constraints that the partitioning logic can
use to recognize that it need only consider a few of the partitions, it
proceeds to generate a plan joining the entire partition trees.  The
individual elements of the plan get thrown away later due to the WHERE
FALSE, but not before we've expended cycles considering them; so the
planning time is not much different from what it'd be if you had no
WHERE at all.

I'm disinclined to consider this an interesting case, frankly.
It's more an example of the documented fact that we're not very
good yet with large numbers of partitions.

                        regards, tom lane


Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: BUG #16558: `AND FALSE` increases planning time of query on 2 tables with 1000 partitions to more than 7 seconds

David Rowley
On Wed, 29 Jul 2020 at 03:33, Tom Lane <[hidden email]> wrote:

>
> PG Bug reporting form <[hidden email]> writes:
> > Consider the following setup of empty tables partitioned first by `key1` and
> > then by `key2`:
> > ...
> > EXPLAIN ANALYZE
> > SELECT *
> >  FROM demo1
> >   JOIN demo2 ON demo1.key2 = demo2.key2
> >  WHERE demo1.key2 = 123
> >   AND demo2.key2 = 123
> >   AND FALSE;
>
> What seems to be happening here is that expression simplification reduces
> the WHERE clause to just constant-false, ie
>
> SELECT * FROM demo1 JOIN demo2 ON demo1.key2 = demo2.key2 WHERE FALSE;
I wonder if we could maybe cheaply do something better for this case.
There's a paragraph of comment in distribute_qual_to_rels() which
reads:

* When the clause contains no volatile functions either, it is actually a
* pseudoconstant clause that will not change value during any one
* execution of the plan, and hence can be used as a one-time qual in a
* gating Result plan node.  We put such a clause into the regular
* RestrictInfo lists for the moment, but eventually createplan.c will
* pull it out and make a gating Result node immediately above whatever
* plan node the pseudoconstant clause is assigned to.  It's usually best
* to put a gating node as high in the plan tree as possible. If we are
* not below an outer join, we can actually push the pseudoconstant qual
* all the way to the top of the tree.  If we are below an outer join, we
* leave the qual at its original syntactic level (we could push it up to
* just below the outer join, but that seems more complex than it's
* worth).

I guess that's so we generate the gating qual as high as possible in
the plan tree, which is good for saving in the executor and saves work
in createplan.c when the gating qual is const-false since we won't
need to generate any plan below that. However, it's not very good for
the planner as we still must create paths etc for the base relations.
I wonder if we can do a bit better and make push const-false quals to
the base-rels too.

The attached is roughly what I mean. It's absent of any comment
updates. Just aimed as a conversation aid at the moment.

It does have a side-effect of having remove_rel_from_query() transfer
the join-level gating qual to the baserel when a join is removed which
does double up on the gating qual and turns "One-Time Filter: false"
into "One-Time Filter: (false AND false)".  We could check for that in
remove_rel_from_query(), but it's a bit ugly... or maybe the whole
thing is ugly, but I"m happy to hear thoughts on it.

FWIW, Marcin's example case with the patch does:
                                     QUERY PLAN
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 Result  (cost=0.00..0.00 rows=0 width=0) (actual time=0.001..0.002
rows=0 loops=1)
   One-Time Filter: false
 Planning Time: 0.077 ms
 Execution Time: 0.015 ms
(4 rows)

David

pushdown_const_false_qual_to_baserels.patch (2K) Download Attachment
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: BUG #16558: `AND FALSE` increases planning time of query on 2 tables with 1000 partitions to more than 7 seconds

Tom Lane-2
David Rowley <[hidden email]> writes:
> On Wed, 29 Jul 2020 at 03:33, Tom Lane <[hidden email]> wrote:
>> What seems to be happening here is that expression simplification reduces
>> the WHERE clause to just constant-false, ie
>> SELECT * FROM demo1 JOIN demo2 ON demo1.key2 = demo2.key2 WHERE FALSE;

> I wonder if we could maybe cheaply do something better for this case.

I'd wondered about that too, but it seems like there's no way that it's
not going to penalize every query in order to improve abysmally stupid
queries.  I will never buy that an ORM should be allowed to issue WHERE
FALSE (rather than suppressing issuance of the query altogether) and
expect that somebody else will mop up after its astonishing laziness.
So I'm not big on adding complexity and cycles to something as critical
as distribute_qual_to_rels to deal with it.

FWIW, the existing "pseudoconstant" support is called that because in
most useful queries, what it's dealing with is not actually a constant
in this sense, but something that will require run-time evaluation.
So the majority of that logic is dealing with real, useful query cases,
and there is little if any that is optimizing WHERE FALSE per se.

                        regards, tom lane


Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: BUG #16558: `AND FALSE` increases planning time of query on 2 tables with 1000 partitions to more than 7 seconds

David Rowley
On Fri, 31 Jul 2020 at 12:46, Tom Lane <[hidden email]> wrote:

>
> David Rowley <[hidden email]> writes:
> > On Wed, 29 Jul 2020 at 03:33, Tom Lane <[hidden email]> wrote:
> >> What seems to be happening here is that expression simplification reduces
> >> the WHERE clause to just constant-false, ie
> >> SELECT * FROM demo1 JOIN demo2 ON demo1.key2 = demo2.key2 WHERE FALSE;
>
> > I wonder if we could maybe cheaply do something better for this case.
>
> I'd wondered about that too, but it seems like there's no way that it's
> not going to penalize every query in order to improve abysmally stupid
> queries.  I will never buy that an ORM should be allowed to issue WHERE
> FALSE (rather than suppressing issuance of the query altogether) and
> expect that somebody else will mop up after its astonishing laziness.
> So I'm not big on adding complexity and cycles to something as critical
> as distribute_qual_to_rels to deal with it.

hmm ok. FWIW, I did have in mind that the FALSE had been constant
folded from something more complex. I don't really have any particular
interest in speeding up the queries that actually actually write WHERE
false. It's just constant folding has already been done by this time
so we can't really know if the qual was something more legitimate
prior to the folding.

David


Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: BUG #16558: `AND FALSE` increases planning time of query on 2 tables with 1000 partitions to more than 7 seconds

Tom Lane-2
David Rowley <[hidden email]> writes:
> hmm ok. FWIW, I did have in mind that the FALSE had been constant
> folded from something more complex.

Hm.  Maybe that's a legitimate argument, not sure.  But I'd still
rather find someplace that's less critical performance-wise if we're
going to try to hack up this case.

I also wonder about cases like

select * from (t1 join t2 on false) join t3 on t1.x=t3.y;

If we were taking this seriously, it'd be nice to deduce that
(1) the t1/t2 join is empty and (2) therefore so is the join
to t3, so (3) we need not build paths for any of these base rels.
I think the syntactically-driven method you're proposing would
not catch that, which'd be problematic if t3 is the giant
partitioned rel.

[ wanders away wondering if reduce_outer_joins could be taught
to do this... ]

                        regards, tom lane