Hi.
Fujita-san pointed out in a nearby thread [1] that EXPLAIN ANALYZE shows
duplicate stats for partitions' triggers.
Example:
create table p (a 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 p3 partition of p for values in (3);
create trigger show_data before update on p1 for each row execute
procedure trig_notice_func();
create trigger show_data before update on p2 for each row execute
procedure trig_notice_func();
insert into p values (1), (2);
explain (analyze, costs off, timing off) update p set a = a + 1;
NOTICE: OLD: (1); NEW: (2)
NOTICE: OLD: (2); NEW: (3)
QUERY PLAN
----------------------------------------------
Update on p (actual rows=0 loops=1)
Update on p1
Update on p2
Update on p3
-> Seq Scan on p1 (actual rows=1 loops=1)
-> Seq Scan on p2 (actual rows=1 loops=1)
-> Seq Scan on p3 (actual rows=0 loops=1)
Planning time: 2.000 ms
Trigger show_data on p1: calls=1
Trigger show_data on p2: calls=1
Trigger show_data on p1: calls=1
Trigger show_data on p2: calls=1
Execution time: 4.228 ms
(13 rows)
See that the information about the trigger show_data is shown twice for
partitions p1 and p2. That happens because ExplainPrintTriggers() goes
through both es_result_relations and es_leaf_result_relations to show the
trigger information. As Fujita-san pointed out in the linked email,
ExecSetupPartitionTupleRouting() adds a partition ResultRelInfo to
es_leaf_result_relations even if it may already have been present in
es_result_relations, which happens if a ResultRelInfo is reused in the
case of update tuple routing.
Attached is a patch to fix that. After the patch:
explain (analyze, costs off, timing off) update p set a = a + 1;
NOTICE: OLD: (1); NEW: (2)
NOTICE: OLD: (2); NEW: (3)
QUERY PLAN
----------------------------------------------
Update on p (actual rows=0 loops=1)
Update on p1
Update on p2
Update on p3
-> Seq Scan on p1 (actual rows=1 loops=1)
-> Seq Scan on p2 (actual rows=1 loops=1)
-> Seq Scan on p3 (actual rows=0 loops=1)
Planning time: 0.627 ms
Trigger show_data on p1: calls=1
Trigger show_data on p2: calls=1
Execution time: 1.443 ms
(11 rows)
When working on this, I wondered if the es_leaf_result_relations should
actually be named something like es_tuple_routing_result_rels, to denote
the fact that they're created by tuple routing code. The current name
might lead to someone thinking that it contains *all* leaf result rels,
but that won't remain true after this patch. Thoughts?
Thanks,
Amit
[1] https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/5A783549.4020409%40lab.ntt.co.jp
