Re: Is it worth pushing conditions to sublink/subplan? - Mailing list pgsql-hackers
From | shawn wang |
---|---|
Subject | Re: Is it worth pushing conditions to sublink/subplan? |
Date | |
Msg-id | CA+T=_GW5JX-4EFb9iujv_ULpW1HjxmKYkjjMA1iq3fGa8FL4bQ@mail.gmail.com Whole thread Raw |
In response to | Re: Is it worth pushing conditions to sublink/subplan? (Wenjing <wenjing.zwj@alibaba-inc.com>) |
Responses |
回复:Re: Is it worth pushing conditions to sublink/subplan?
|
List | pgsql-hackers |
Test according to your first SQL, the optimizer cuts the unnecessary sub-tables well.
You can see the plan:
postgres=# explain analyze
postgres-# select temp.p1 from
postgres-# (
postgres(# select p1,p2 from test1.test1hashtable x where x.p1 = '1'
postgres(# union all
postgres(# (values('1','1'))
postgres(# ) temp,
postgres-# test1.test1hashtable y
postgres-# where y.p2 = temp.p2 and y.p1 = '1' and y.p1='1';
QUERY PLAN
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Nested Loop (cost=0.00..25.55 rows=1 width=32) (actual time=0.004..0.004 rows=0 loops=1)
Join Filter: (x.p2 = y.p2)
-> Seq Scan on test1hashtable826 y (cost=0.00..12.75 rows=1 width=32) (actual time=0.002..0.002 rows=0 loops=1)
Filter: (p1 = '1'::text)
-> Append (cost=0.00..12.78 rows=2 width=64) (never executed)
-> Seq Scan on test1hashtable826 x (cost=0.00..12.75 rows=1 width=64) (never executed)
Filter: (p1 = '1'::text)
-> Result (cost=0.00..0.01 rows=1 width=64) (never executed)
Planning Time: 0.158 ms
Execution Time: 0.022 ms
(10 rows)
But when the second one runs, the planning time reaches 13.942ms.
The plan:
postgres=# explain analyze
postgres-# select
postgres-# y.p1,
postgres-# (Select x.p2 from test1.test1hashtable x where y.p1 =x.p1 and y.p2=x.p2) as b
postgres-# from test1.test1hashtable y where p1 = '1' and p2 = '1';
QUERY PLAN
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Seq Scan on test1hashtable826 y (cost=0.00..13318.30 rows=1 width=64) (actual time=0.004..0.047 rows=0 loops=1)
Filter: ((p1 = '1'::text) AND (p2 = '1'::text))
SubPlan 1
-> Append (cost=0.00..13305.00 rows=1000 width=32) (never executed)
-> Seq Scan on test1hashtable1 x_1 (cost=0.00..13.30 rows=1 width=32) (never executed)
Filter: ((y.p1 = p1) AND (y.p2 = p2))
-> Seq Scan on test1hashtable1000 x_1000 (cost=0.00..13.30 rows=1 width=32) (never executed)
Filter: ((y.p1 = p1) AND (y.p2 = p2))
Planning Time: 13.942 ms
Execution Time: 4.899 ms
(2006 rows)
This is a very worthwhile thing to do. In a relatively large business system, a large number of partition tables and high concurrency are often used. If the planning time is too long, this will greatly affect the business.
regards,
Shawn.
2021年8月16日 17:15,Wenjing <wenjing.zwj@alibaba-inc.com> 写道:Hi Hackers,Recently, a issue has been bothering me, This is about conditional push-down in SQL.I use cases from regression testing as an example.I found that the conditions (B =1) can be pushed down into the subquery, However, it cannot be pushed down to sublink/subplan.If a sublink/subplan clause contains a partition table, it can be useful to get the conditions for pruning.So, is it worth pushing conditions to sublink/subplan?Anybody have any ideas?regards,Wenjingexample:create table p (a int, b int, c int) partition by list (a);create table p1 partition of p for values in (1);create table p2 partition of p for values in (2);create table q (a int, b int, c int) partition by list (a);create table q1 partition of q for values in (1) partition by list (b);create table q11 partition of q1 for values in (1) partition by list (c);create table q111 partition of q11 for values in (1);create table q2 partition of q for values in (2) partition by list (b);create table q21 partition of q2 for values in (1);create table q22 partition of q2 for values in (2);insert into q22 values (2, 2, 3);Sorry, I messed up the structure of the table.It is should be:create table ab (a int not null, b int not null) partition by list (a);create table ab_a2 partition of ab for values in(2) partition by list (b);create table ab_a2_b1 partition of ab_a2 for values in (1);create table ab_a2_b2 partition of ab_a2 for values in (2);create table ab_a2_b3 partition of ab_a2 for values in (3);create table ab_a1 partition of ab for values in(1) partition by list (b);create table ab_a1_b1 partition of ab_a1 for values in (1);create table ab_a1_b2 partition of ab_a1 for values in (2);create table ab_a1_b3 partition of ab_a1 for values in (3);create table ab_a3 partition of ab for values in(3) partition by list (b);create table ab_a3_b1 partition of ab_a3 for values in (1);create table ab_a3_b2 partition of ab_a3 for values in (2);create table ab_a3_b3 partition of ab_a3 for values in (3);postgres-# explain (costs off)postgres-# select temp.b frompostgres-# (postgres(# select a,b from ab x where x.a = 1postgres(# union allpostgres(# (values(1,1))postgres(# ) temp,postgres-# ab ypostgres-# where y.b = temp.b and y.a = 1 and y.b=1;QUERY PLAN---------------------------------------------------Nested Loop-> Seq Scan on ab_a1_b1 yFilter: ((b = 1) AND (a = 1))-> Append-> Subquery Scan on "*SELECT* 1"-> Seq Scan on ab_a1_b1 xFilter: ((a = 1) AND (b = 1))-> Result(8 rows)The conditions (B =1) can be pushed down into the subquery.postgres=# explain (costs off)postgres-# selectpostgres-# y.a,postgres-# (Select x.b from ab x where y.a =x.a and y.b=x.b) as bpostgres-# from ab y where a = 1 and b = 1;QUERY PLAN---------------------------------------------------Seq Scan on ab_a1_b1 yFilter: ((a = 1) AND (b = 1))SubPlan 1-> Append-> Seq Scan on ab_a1_b1 x_1Filter: ((y.a = a) AND (y.b = b))-> Seq Scan on ab_a1_b2 x_2Filter: ((y.a = a) AND (y.b = b))-> Seq Scan on ab_a1_b3 x_3Filter: ((y.a = a) AND (y.b = b))-> Seq Scan on ab_a2_b1 x_4Filter: ((y.a = a) AND (y.b = b))-> Seq Scan on ab_a2_b2 x_5Filter: ((y.a = a) AND (y.b = b))-> Seq Scan on ab_a2_b3 x_6Filter: ((y.a = a) AND (y.b = b))-> Seq Scan on ab_a3_b1 x_7Filter: ((y.a = a) AND (y.b = b))-> Seq Scan on ab_a3_b2 x_8Filter: ((y.a = a) AND (y.b = b))-> Seq Scan on ab_a3_b3 x_9Filter: ((y.a = a) AND (y.b = b))(22 rows)The conditions (B = 1 and A = 1) cannot be pushed down to sublink/subplan in targetlist.postgres=# explain (costs off)postgres-# select y.apostgres-# from ab ypostgres-# wherepostgres-# (select x.a > x.b from ab x where y.a =x.a and y.b=x.b) andpostgres-# y.a = 1 and y.b = 1;QUERY PLAN---------------------------------------------------Seq Scan on ab_a1_b1 yFilter: ((a = 1) AND (b = 1) AND (SubPlan 1))SubPlan 1-> Append-> Seq Scan on ab_a1_b1 x_1Filter: ((y.a = a) AND (y.b = b))-> Seq Scan on ab_a1_b2 x_2Filter: ((y.a = a) AND (y.b = b))-> Seq Scan on ab_a1_b3 x_3Filter: ((y.a = a) AND (y.b = b))-> Seq Scan on ab_a2_b1 x_4Filter: ((y.a = a) AND (y.b = b))-> Seq Scan on ab_a2_b2 x_5Filter: ((y.a = a) AND (y.b = b))-> Seq Scan on ab_a2_b3 x_6Filter: ((y.a = a) AND (y.b = b))-> Seq Scan on ab_a3_b1 x_7Filter: ((y.a = a) AND (y.b = b))-> Seq Scan on ab_a3_b2 x_8Filter: ((y.a = a) AND (y.b = b))-> Seq Scan on ab_a3_b3 x_9Filter: ((y.a = a) AND (y.b = b))(22 rows)The conditions (B=1 and A=1) cannot be pushed down to sublink/subplan in where clause.
pgsql-hackers by date: