Re: POC, WIP: OR-clause support for indexes - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Alena Rybakina
Subject Re: POC, WIP: OR-clause support for indexes
Date
Msg-id 7829312a-eb6b-b9ba-9719-71c9bc410884@yandex.ru
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: POC, WIP: OR-clause support for indexes  (Peter Geoghegan <pg@bowt.ie>)
Responses Re: POC, WIP: OR-clause support for indexes
Re: POC, WIP: OR-clause support for indexes
List pgsql-hackers
On 26.06.2023 06:18, Peter Geoghegan wrote:
On Sun, Jun 25, 2023 at 6:48 PM Alena Rybakina <lena.ribackina@yandex.ru> wrote:
I finished writing the code patch for transformation "Or" expressions to "Any" expressions.
This seems interesting to me. I'm currently working on improving
nbtree's "native execution of ScalarArrayOpExpr quals" (see commit
9e8da0f7 for background information). That is relevant to what you're
trying to do here.

Right now nbtree's handling of ScalarArrayOpExpr is rather
inefficient. The executor does pass the index scan an array of
constants, so the whole structure already allows the nbtree code to
execute the ScalarArrayOpExpr in whatever way would be most efficient.
There is only one problem: it doesn't really try to do so. It more or
less just breaks down the large ScalarArrayOpExpr into "mini" queries
-- one per constant. Internally, query execution isn't significantly
different to executing many of these "mini" queries independently. We
just sort and deduplicate the arrays. We don't intelligently decide
which pages dynamically. This is related to skip scan.

Attached is an example query that shows the problem. Right now the
query needs to access a buffer containing an index page a total of 24
times. It's actually accessing the same 2 pages 12 times. My draft
patch only requires 2 buffer accesses -- because it "coalesces the
array constants together" dynamically at run time. That is a little
extreme, but it's certainly possible.

BTW, this project is related to skip scan. It's part of the same
family of techniques -- MDAM techniques. (I suppose that that's
already true for ScalarArrayOpExpr execution by nbtree, but without
dynamic behavior it's not nearly as valuable as it could be.)

If executing ScalarArrayOpExprs was less inefficient in these cases
then the planner could be a lot more aggressive about using them.
Seems like these executor improvements might go well together with
what you're doing in the planner. Note that I have to "set
random_page_cost=0.1" to get the planner to use all of the quals from
the query as index quals. It thinks (correctly) that the query plan is
very inefficient. That happens to match reality right now, but the
underlying reality could change significantly. Something to think
about.

--
Peter Geoghegan
Thank you for your feedback, your work is also very interesting and important, and I will be happy to review it. I learned something new from your letter, thank you very much for that!

I analyzed the buffer consumption when I ran control regression tests using my patch. diff shows me that there is no difference between the number of buffer block scans without and using my patch, as far as I have seen. (regression.diffs)


In addition, I analyzed the scheduling and duration of the execution time of the source code and with my applied patch. I generated 20 billion data from pgbench and plotted the scheduling and execution time depending on the number of "or" expressions.
By runtime, I noticed a clear acceleration for queries when using the index, but I can't say the same when the index is disabled.
At first I turned it off in this way:
1)enable_seqscan='off'
2)enable_indexonlyscan='off'
enable_indexscan='off'

Unfortunately, it is not yet clear which constant needs to be set when the transformation needs to be done, I will still study in detail. (the graph for all this is presented in graph1.svg)
\\
-- 
Regards,
Alena Rybakina
Attachment

pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Ants Aasma
Date:
Subject: Re: ReadRecentBuffer() doesn't scale well
Next
From: Amit Langote
Date:
Subject: initial pruning in parallel append