Re: [BUG?] strange behavior in ALTER TABLE ... RENAME TO on inherited columns - Mailing list pgsql-hackers
| From | KaiGai Kohei |
|---|---|
| Subject | Re: [BUG?] strange behavior in ALTER TABLE ... RENAME TO on inherited columns |
| Date | |
| Msg-id | 4B5E4122.20608@ak.jp.nec.com Whole thread Raw |
| In response to | Re: [BUG?] strange behavior in ALTER TABLE ... RENAME TO on inherited columns (Bernd Helmle <mailings@oopsware.de>) |
| Responses |
Re: [BUG?] strange behavior in ALTER TABLE ... RENAME TO
on inherited columns
|
| List | pgsql-hackers |
(2010/01/26 1:11), Bernd Helmle wrote:
>
>
> --On 25. Januar 2010 11:39:21 +0900 KaiGai Kohei <kaigai@ak.jp.nec.com>
> wrote:
>
>> (echo "CREATE TABLE t (a int);"
>> for i in `seq 0 9`; do
>> echo "CREATE TABLE s$i (b int) INHERITS(t);"
>> for j in `seq 0 9`; do
>> echo "CREATE TABLE v$i$j (c int) INHERITS(s$i);"
>> for k in `seq 0 9`; do
>> echo "CREATE TABLE w$i$j$k (d int) INHERITS(v$i$j);"
>> for l in `seq 0 9`; do
>> echo "CREATE TABLE x$i$j$k$l (e int) INHERITS(w$i$j$k);"
>> done
>> done
>> done
>> done) | psql test
>
> Well, each table inherits one table in your test. In my test, I inherit
> from multiple tables for each table. My script generates the following
> inheritance tree (and wins a price of copy & paste ugliness, see
> attachment):
>
> A1, A2, A3, ..., Am
> B1 INHERITS(A1...A10), B2 INHERITS(A1...A10, B3 INHERITS(A1...A10), ...Bn
> C1 INHERITS(B1...B10), C2 INHERITS(B1...B10), ... Co
> D1 INHERITS(C1...C10), ..., Dp
>
> m = 10
> n = 10
> o = 10
> p = 1000
>
> Repeating this on my MacBook gives:
>
> ALTER TABLE a1 RENAME COLUMN acol1 TO xyz;
>
> -HEAD:
>
> Time: 382,427 ms
> Time: 375,974 ms
> Time: 385,478 ms
> Time: 371,067 ms
> Time: 410,834 ms
> Time: 386,382 ms
>
> Recent V4 patch:
>
> Time: 6065,673 ms
> Time: 3823,206 ms
> Time: 4037,933 ms
> Time: 3873,029 ms
> Time: 3899,607 ms
> Time: 3963,308 ms
Hmm... I also could observe similar result in 4 times iteration of
ALTER TABLE with your test_rename.sql.
I agree the recent V4 patch is poor in performance perspective.
* CVS HEAD 0.828s 0.828s 0.833s 0.829s 0.838s
* Rcent V4 patch:10.283s10.135s10.107s10.382s10.162s
* Previous V3 patch: 2.607s 2.429s 2.431s 2.436s 2.428s
The V3 patch is designed to compute an expected inhcount for each relations
to be altered at first, then it shall be compared to pg_attribute.inhcount
to be renamed.
Basically, its execution cost is same order except for a case when a relation
has diamond inheritance tree.
The find_all_inheritors() does not check child relations which is already
scanned. However, in this case, we have to check how many times is the child
relation inherited from a common origin.
I guess it is reason of the different between -HEAD and V3.
For example, if we have the following inheritance tree,
A2 A5 / \ \
A1 A4 \ / \ A3 -- A6
The find_all_inheritors() checks existence of directly inherited relations
at A1, ... , A6 without any duplications, because this function does not
intend to compute how many times was it inherited.
The find_all_inheritors_with_inhcount() in V3 patch checks existence of
directly inherited relations, even if the target relation is already checked,
because it also has to return the times to be inherited from a common origin.
In this example, it considers the above structure is same as the following
tree. In this diagram, we can find A4 and A5 twice, and A6 thrice.
A5 / A2 - A4 - A6 \
A1 \ A3 - A4 - A6 \ \ A6 A5
Thus, the test_rename.sql was the worst case test for V3 also.
However, I don't think we should keep the bug in the next release.
The CVS HEAD's performance is the result of omission for necessary checks.
I think we should back to the V3 patch approach, and also reconsider
the logic in ATPrepAlterColumnType().
Thanks,
--
OSS Platform Development Division, NEC
KaiGai Kohei <kaigai@ak.jp.nec.com>
pgsql-hackers by date: