Uninterruptible long planning of a query with too many WHERE clauses - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Alexander Kuzmenkov
Subject Uninterruptible long planning of a query with too many WHERE clauses
Date
Msg-id 90c5bdfa-d633-dabe-9889-3cf3e1acd443@postgrespro.ru
Whole thread Raw
Responses Re: Uninterruptible long planning of a query with too many WHERE clauses  (Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>)
List pgsql-hackers
Hi hackers,

Recently one of our customers encountered a situation when the planning 
of a particular query takes too long (several minutes) and can't be 
interrupted by pg_terminate_backend(). The query and schema are attached 
(this is generated by Zabbix). The reason for the slowness is that the 
run time of choose_bitmap_and() is quadratic in the number of WHERE 
clauses. It assigns unique ids to the clauses by putting them in a list 
and then doing a linear search with equal() to determine the position of 
each new clause.

Our first attempt to fix this was putting these clauses into an rbtree 
or dynahash. This improves the performance, but is not entirely correct. 
We don't have a comparison or hash function for nodes, so we have to 
hash or compare their string representation. But the equality of 
nodeToString() is not equivalent to equal(), because the string has some 
fields that are ignored by equal(), such as token location. So we can't 
really compare the string value instead of using equal().

I settled on a simpler solution: limiting the number of clauses we try 
to uniquely identify. If there are too many, skip the smarter logic that 
requires comparing paths by clauses, and just return the cheapest input 
path from choose_bitmap_and(). The patch is attached.

I'd like to hear your thoughts on this. This is a valid query that 
freezes a backend with 100% CPU usage and no way to interrupt it, and I 
think we should fail more gracefully.

-- 
Alexander Kuzmenkov
Postgres Professional: http://www.postgrespro.com
The Russian Postgres Company


Attachment

pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Robert Haas
Date:
Subject: Re: ATTACH/DETACH PARTITION CONCURRENTLY
Next
From: Adam Berlin
Date:
Subject: Re: Add extension options to control TAP and isolation tests