Thread: BUG #18526: 'UPDATE' inconsistency using index scan with 'NOT EXIST' after upgrading to PostgreSQL 16
BUG #18526: 'UPDATE' inconsistency using index scan with 'NOT EXIST' after upgrading to PostgreSQL 16
From
PG Bug reporting form
Date:
The following bug has been logged on the website: Bug reference: 18526 Logged by: Feliphe Pozzer Email address: feliphepozzer@gmail.com PostgreSQL version: 16.3 Operating system: Ubuntu Description: After upgrading from PostgreSQL 15 to PostgreSQL 16, an UPDATE on our data structure stopped functioning correctly. The data structure is randomly generated, resulting in a variable number of updates. Steps to Reproduce: 1 - Create the tables and indexes as per the provided script. 2 - Populate the tables with random data using the provided PL/pgSQL blocks. 3 - Execute the following query to update the financial table Expected Result: All records that meet the criteria should be updated regardless of using index scan or seq scan. Actual Result: When PostgreSQL 16 uses index scan, it fails to find and update all records. By changing random_page_cost to a value that forces the use of seq scan, all records are updated correctly. Environment: PostgreSQL Version: 16 Operating System: Ubuntu Logs and Error Messages: There are no specific error messages, but the unexpected behavior is observed in the query execution plan. Structure: -- Creation of the financial table CREATE TABLE financial ( id SERIAL PRIMARY KEY, canceled BPCHAR(1), settlement BPCHAR(1), type VARCHAR(50), description VARCHAR(50) ); -- Creation of the account_movement table CREATE TABLE account_movement ( id SERIAL PRIMARY KEY, credit_invoice_id INT, FOREIGN KEY (credit_invoice_id) REFERENCES financial(id) ); -- Creation of the indexes CREATE INDEX idx_financial_settlement ON financial USING btree (settlement); CREATE INDEX idx_account_movement_credit_invoice_id ON account_movement USING btree (credit_invoice_id); -- Populating random data for the financial table DO $$ BEGIN FOR i IN 1..2500 LOOP INSERT INTO financial (canceled, settlement, type) VALUES ( (ARRAY['0', '1'])[floor(random() * 2 + 1)], (ARRAY[NULL, 1])[floor(random() * 2 + 1)], (ARRAY['type1', 'type2', 'type3', 'type4', 'type5'])[floor(random() * 5 + 1)] ); END LOOP; END $$; -- Populating random data for the account_movement table DO $$ BEGIN FOR i IN 1..1000 LOOP INSERT INTO account_movement (credit_invoice_id) VALUES ( (ARRAY[NULL, (SELECT id FROM financial ORDER BY random() LIMIT 1)])[floor(random() * 2 + 1)] ); END LOOP; END $$; VACUUM ANALYZE financial, account_movement; SET random_page_cost = 4; UPDATE financial F SET description = '1' WHERE canceled = '0' AND settlement IS NULL AND type = 'type5' AND NOT EXISTS (SELECT 1 FROM account_movement AM WHERE AM.credit_invoice_id = F.id); SET random_page_cost = 1.1; UPDATE financial F SET description = '1' WHERE canceled = '0' AND settlement IS NULL AND type = 'type5' AND NOT EXISTS (SELECT 1 FROM account_movement AM WHERE AM.credit_invoice_id = F.id); Additional Description: I am unsure if this is a bug or incorrect usage of random_page_cost. This same query worked perfectly in PostgreSQL 15, regardless of the execution plan (using seq scan or index scan). To work around this issue, we had to modify the query to correctly update the records.
Re: BUG #18526: 'UPDATE' inconsistency using index scan with 'NOT EXIST' after upgrading to PostgreSQL 16
From
Christophe Pettus
Date:
> On Jun 28, 2024, at 10:24, PG Bug reporting form <noreply@postgresql.org> wrote: > > Expected Result: All records that meet the criteria should be updated > regardless of using index scan or seq scan. > Actual Result: When PostgreSQL 16 uses index scan, it fails to find and > update all records. By changing random_page_cost to a value that forces the > use of seq scan, all records are updated correctly. Have you tried rebuilding the index to rule out index corruption?
Re: BUG #18526: 'UPDATE' inconsistency using index scan with 'NOT EXIST' after upgrading to PostgreSQL 16
From
Tom Lane
Date:
PG Bug reporting form <noreply@postgresql.org> writes: > Expected Result: All records that meet the criteria should be updated > regardless of using index scan or seq scan. > Actual Result: When PostgreSQL 16 uses index scan, it fails to find and > update all records. By changing random_page_cost to a value that forces the > use of seq scan, all records are updated correctly. I see that the problematic plan involves a Merge Right Anti Join step, which makes me guess that this is the same bug recently reported in https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/flat/18522-c7a8956126afdfd0%40postgresql.org Are you in a position to try the patch posted in that thread? regards, tom lane
Re: BUG #18526: 'UPDATE' inconsistency using index scan with 'NOT EXIST' after upgrading to PostgreSQL 16
From
Feliphe Pozzer
Date:
I am currently in the process of familiarizing myself with the steps required to compile and run the PostgreSQL code. As this will take some time, I wanted to let you know that I will begin testing the patch as soon as I am ready. Thank you for your understanding and patience.
Em sex., 28 de jun. de 2024 às 16:13, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> escreveu:
PG Bug reporting form <noreply@postgresql.org> writes:
> Expected Result: All records that meet the criteria should be updated
> regardless of using index scan or seq scan.
> Actual Result: When PostgreSQL 16 uses index scan, it fails to find and
> update all records. By changing random_page_cost to a value that forces the
> use of seq scan, all records are updated correctly.
I see that the problematic plan involves a Merge Right Anti Join step,
which makes me guess that this is the same bug recently reported in
https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/flat/18522-c7a8956126afdfd0%40postgresql.org
Are you in a position to try the patch posted in that thread?
regards, tom lane
Re: BUG #18526: 'UPDATE' inconsistency using index scan with 'NOT EXIST' after upgrading to PostgreSQL 16
From
Feliphe Pozzer
Date:
Hello Tom, I applied the patch you suggested, and it appears that the issue has been resolved.
Em sex., 28 de jun. de 2024 às 16:45, Feliphe Pozzer <feliphepozzer@gmail.com> escreveu:
I am currently in the process of familiarizing myself with the steps required to compile and run the PostgreSQL code. As this will take some time, I wanted to let you know that I will begin testing the patch as soon as I am ready. Thank you for your understanding and patience.Em sex., 28 de jun. de 2024 às 16:13, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> escreveu:PG Bug reporting form <noreply@postgresql.org> writes:
> Expected Result: All records that meet the criteria should be updated
> regardless of using index scan or seq scan.
> Actual Result: When PostgreSQL 16 uses index scan, it fails to find and
> update all records. By changing random_page_cost to a value that forces the
> use of seq scan, all records are updated correctly.
I see that the problematic plan involves a Merge Right Anti Join step,
which makes me guess that this is the same bug recently reported in
https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/flat/18522-c7a8956126afdfd0%40postgresql.org
Are you in a position to try the patch posted in that thread?
regards, tom lane
Re: BUG #18526: 'UPDATE' inconsistency using index scan with 'NOT EXIST' after upgrading to PostgreSQL 16
From
Tom Lane
Date:
Feliphe Pozzer <feliphepozzer@gmail.com> writes: > Hello Tom, I applied the patch you suggested, and it appears that the issue > has been resolved. Thanks for following up! We should have an official fix in August's minor releases. regards, tom lane
Re: BUG #18526: 'UPDATE' inconsistency using index scan with 'NOT EXIST' after upgrading to PostgreSQL 16
From
Richard Guo
Date:
On Sat, Jun 29, 2024 at 4:38 AM Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote: > Feliphe Pozzer <feliphepozzer@gmail.com> writes: > > Hello Tom, I applied the patch you suggested, and it appears that the issue > > has been resolved. > > Thanks for following up! We should have an official fix in August's > minor releases. Thanks for the report and the investigation! Thanks Richard