Re: [HACKERS] [POC] hash partitioning - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Rushabh Lathia
Subject Re: [HACKERS] [POC] hash partitioning
Date
Msg-id CAGPqQf0rPydSe9BkAxd2JvC-2aRANjp4br07Xf0x_KS0LJg15w@mail.gmail.com
Whole thread Raw
In response to [HACKERS] [POC] hash partitioning  (Yugo Nagata <nagata@sraoss.co.jp>)
Responses Re: [HACKERS] [POC] hash partitioning  (Yugo Nagata <nagata@sraoss.co.jp>)
List pgsql-hackers


On Tue, Feb 28, 2017 at 8:03 PM, Yugo Nagata <nagata@sraoss.co.jp> wrote:
Hi all,

Now we have a declarative partitioning, but hash partitioning is not
implemented yet. Attached is a POC patch to add the hash partitioning
feature. I know we will need more discussions about the syntax and other
specifications before going ahead the project, but I think this runnable
code might help to discuss what and how we implement this.

* Description

In this patch, the hash partitioning implementation is basically based
on the list partitioning mechanism. However, partition bounds cannot be
specified explicitly, but this is used internally as hash partition
index, which is calculated when a partition is created or attached.

The tentative syntax to create a partitioned table is as bellow;

 CREATE TABLE h (i int) PARTITION BY HASH(i) PARTITIONS 3 USING hashint4;

The number of partitions is specified by PARTITIONS, which is currently
constant and cannot be changed, but I think this is needed to be changed in
some manner. A hash function is specified by USING. Maybe, specifying hash
function may be ommitted, and in this case, a default hash function
corresponding to key type will be used.

A partition table can be create as bellow;

 CREATE TABLE h1 PARTITION OF h;
 CREATE TABLE h2 PARTITION OF h;
 CREATE TABLE h3 PARTITION OF h;

FOR VALUES clause cannot be used, and the partition bound is
calclulated automatically as partition index of single integer value.

When trying create partitions more than the number specified
by PARTITIONS, it gets an error.

postgres=# create table h4 partition of h;
ERROR:  cannot create hash partition more than 3 for h

An inserted record is stored in a partition whose index equals
abs(hashfunc(key)) % <number_of_partitions>. In the above
example, this is abs(hashint4(i))%3.

postgres=# insert into h (select generate_series(0,20));
INSERT 0 21

postgres=# select *,tableoid::regclass from h;
 i  | tableoid
----+----------
  0 | h1
  1 | h1
  2 | h1
  4 | h1
  8 | h1
 10 | h1
 11 | h1
 14 | h1
 15 | h1
 17 | h1
 20 | h1
  5 | h2
 12 | h2
 13 | h2
 16 | h2
 19 | h2
  3 | h3
  6 | h3
  7 | h3
  9 | h3
 18 | h3
(21 rows)


This is good, I will have closer look into the patch, but here are
few quick comments.

- CREATE HASH partition syntax adds two new keywords and ideally
we should try to avoid adding additional keywords. Also I can see that
HASH keyword been added, but I don't see any use of newly added
keyword in gram.y.

- Also I didn't like the idea of fixing number of partitions during the CREATE
TABLE syntax. Thats something that needs to be able to changes.

 
* Todo / discussions

In this patch, we cannot change the number of partitions specified
by PARTITIONS. I we can change this, the partitioning rule
(<partition index> = abs(hashfunc(key)) % <number_of_partitions>)
is also changed and then we need reallocatiing records between
partitions.

In this patch, user can specify a hash function USING. However,
we migth need default hash functions which are useful and
proper for hash partitioning.

+1

- With fixing default hash function and not specifying number of partitions
during CREATE TABLE - don't need two new additional columns into
pg_partitioned_table catalog.


Currently, even when we issue SELECT query with a condition,
postgres looks into all partitions regardless of each partition's
constraint, because this is complicated such like "abs(hashint4(i))%3 = 0".

postgres=# explain select * from h where i = 10;
                        QUERY PLAN
----------------------------------------------------------
 Append  (cost=0.00..125.62 rows=40 width=4)
   ->  Seq Scan on h  (cost=0.00..0.00 rows=1 width=4)
         Filter: (i = 10)
   ->  Seq Scan on h1  (cost=0.00..41.88 rows=13 width=4)
         Filter: (i = 10)
   ->  Seq Scan on h2  (cost=0.00..41.88 rows=13 width=4)
         Filter: (i = 10)
   ->  Seq Scan on h3  (cost=0.00..41.88 rows=13 width=4)
         Filter: (i = 10)
(9 rows)

However, if we modify a condition into a same expression
as the partitions constraint, postgres can exclude unrelated
table from search targets. So, we might avoid the problem
by converting the qual properly before calling predicate_refuted_by().

postgres=# explain select * from h where abs(hashint4(i))%3 = abs(hashint4(10))%3;
                        QUERY PLAN
----------------------------------------------------------
 Append  (cost=0.00..61.00 rows=14 width=4)
   ->  Seq Scan on h  (cost=0.00..0.00 rows=1 width=4)
         Filter: ((abs(hashint4(i)) % 3) = 2)
   ->  Seq Scan on h3  (cost=0.00..61.00 rows=13 width=4)
         Filter: ((abs(hashint4(i)) % 3) = 2)
(5 rows)

Best regards,
Yugo Nagata

--
Yugo Nagata <nagata@sraoss.co.jp>


--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers




Regards,

Rushabh Lathia

pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Venkata B Nagothi
Date:
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] patch proposal
Next
From: Thomas Munro
Date:
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] brin autosummarization -- autovacuum "work items"