Thread

PostgreSQL 8.0.0 Release Candidate 5

Marc G. Fournier <scrappy@postgresql.org> — 2005-01-11T20:15:41Z

Due to several small, and one fairly large, bugs that were found in 
Release Candidate 4, we have been forced to release our 5th Release (and 
hopefully last) Candidate so that we can get some proper testing in on the 
changes before release.

A current list of *known* supported platforms can be found at:

 	http://developer.postgresql.org/supported-platforms.html

We're always looking to improve that list, so we encourage anyone that is 
running a platform not listed to please report on any success or failures with 
Release Candidate 4.

Baring *any* coding changes (documentation != code) over the next week or so, 
we *hope* that this will the final Release Candidate before Full Release, with 
that being aimed for the 19th of January.

As always, this release is available on all mirrors, as listed at:

 	http://wwwmaster.postgresql.org/download/mirrors-ftp

For those using Bittorrent, David Fetter has updated the .torrents, 
available at:

 	http://bt.postgresql.org

Please report any bug reports with this Release Candidate to:

 	pgsql-bugs@postgresql.org

----
Marc G. Fournier           Hub.Org Networking Services (http://www.hub.org)
Email: scrappy@hub.org           Yahoo!: yscrappy              ICQ: 7615664

SUSE port (was [ANNOUNCE] PostgreSQL 8.0.0 Release Candidate 5)

Simon Riggs <simon@2ndquadrant.com> — 2005-01-12T08:23:57Z

Not sure what is going on here: why is SUSE not listed on the supported
platforms list? (still)

...is it because Reinhard seems resistant (after private conversation)
to the idea of submitting a formal port report via HACKERS, like
everybody else?

...or is it because his postings to ANNOUNCE that the port to SUSE have
gone unnoticed by those that compile the supported platforms list?

...or both?

There seems no reason for either to occur, but still - no port listed.

Please list the SUSE port, as reported by Reinhard Max.
Please can Reinhard (or another SUSE rep) submit port reports to 
pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org.

Best Regards, Simon Riggs


On Tue, 2005-01-11 at 16:15 -0400, Marc G. Fournier wrote:
> Due to several small, and one fairly large, bugs that were found in 
> Release Candidate 4, we have been forced to release our 5th Release (and 
> hopefully last) Candidate so that we can get some proper testing in on the 
> changes before release.
> 
> A current list of *known* supported platforms can be found at:
> 
>  	http://developer.postgresql.org/supported-platforms.html
> 
> We're always looking to improve that list, so we encourage anyone that is 
> running a platform not listed to please report on any success or failures with 
> Release Candidate 4.
> 
> Baring *any* coding changes (documentation != code) over the next week or so, 
> we *hope* that this will the final Release Candidate before Full Release, with 
> that being aimed for the 19th of January.
> 
> As always, this release is available on all mirrors, as listed at:
> 
>  	http://wwwmaster.postgresql.org/download/mirrors-ftp
> 
> For those using Bittorrent, David Fetter has updated the .torrents, 
> available at:
> 
>  	http://bt.postgresql.org
> 
> Please report any bug reports with this Release Candidate to:
> 
>  	pgsql-bugs@postgresql.org
> 
> ----
> Marc G. Fournier           Hub.Org Networking Services (http://www.hub.org)
> Email: scrappy@hub.org           Yahoo!: yscrappy              ICQ: 7615664
> 
> ---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
> TIP 2: you can get off all lists at once with the unregister command
>     (send "unregister YourEmailAddressHere" to majordomo@postgresql.org)

Re: SUSE port (was [ANNOUNCE] PostgreSQL 8.0.0 Release Candidate 5)

Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> — 2005-01-12T08:53:43Z

Simon Riggs <simon@2ndquadrant.com> writes:
> Not sure what is going on here: why is SUSE not listed on the supported
> platforms list? (still)

I haven't seen any reports of passes on SUSE.  I have zero doubt that PG
works on SUSE, since it's pretty much exactly like every other Linux,
but there's been no specific reports on the lists AFAIR.

> ...is it because Reinhard seems resistant (after private conversation)
> to the idea of submitting a formal port report via HACKERS, like
> everybody else?

See above.

> ...or is it because his postings to ANNOUNCE that the port to SUSE have
> gone unnoticed by those that compile the supported platforms list?

If he insists on posting such routine stuff to pgsql-announce, he should
not be too surprised that his postings do not get approved.  That isn't
the correct forum.  We don't peruse the New York Times classified ads
for such reports, either ...

			regards, tom lane

Re: SUSE port (was [ANNOUNCE] PostgreSQL 8.0.0 Release Candidate 5)

Reinhard Max <max@suse.de> — 2005-01-12T10:17:52Z

Simon,

On Wed, 12 Jan 2005 at 08:23, Simon Riggs wrote:

> Not sure what is going on here: why is SUSE not listed on the supported
> platforms list? (still)
> 
> ...is it because Reinhard seems resistant

why do you think so?

> (after private conversation) to the idea of submitting a formal port 
> report via HACKERS, like everybody else?

I andwered you that I will do it, but last week was a short week for 
me, and this Monday I had an email from Peter Eisentraut telling me 
that he will add the SUSE ports to the list, so I didn't see a need to 
send a report in addition.

cu
	Reinhard

Re: SUSE port (was [ANNOUNCE] PostgreSQL 8.0.0 Release

Reinhard Max <max@suse.de> — 2005-01-12T10:38:55Z

Tom,

On Wed, 12 Jan 2005 at 03:53, Tom Lane wrote:

> > ...or is it because his postings to ANNOUNCE that the port to SUSE 
> > have gone unnoticed by those that compile the supported platforms 
> > list?
> 
> If he insists on posting such routine stuff to pgsql-announce, he 
> should not be too surprised that his postings do not get approved.
> That isn't the correct forum. We don't peruse the New York Times 
> classified ads for such reports, either ...

no need to be rude to me for posting one single email to ANNOUNCE 
after years of providing the SUSE RPMs silently. There were other 
posts about RPM builds on ANNOUNCE, so I thought it would be the right 
place to announce mine as well.

BTW, what would be the correct forum to make PostgreSQL users aware of 
the appearance of new RPMs, if it is not ANNOUNCE? They are certainly 
not expected to be reading the HACKERS list.

cu
	Reinhard

Re: SUSE port (was [ANNOUNCE] PostgreSQL 8.0.0 Release Candidate 5)

Peter Eisentraut <peter_e@gmx.net> — 2005-01-12T15:29:23Z

Simon Riggs wrote:
> Not sure what is going on here: why is SUSE not listed on the
> supported platforms list? (still)

RC5 contains:

  SUSE Linux x86 8.0.0 Peter Eisentraut (<peter_e@gmx.net>), 2005-01-10
  9.1

In the meantime I have received confirmation from Reinhard Max that his 
test methods match our requirements, so the list will be completed with 
the other platforms he reported in due time.

I'm sorry, but I won't just add "it works" notices if it's not clear 
what kind of testing was done.

-- 
Peter Eisentraut
http://developer.postgresql.org/~petere/

Re: SUSE port (was [ANNOUNCE] PostgreSQL 8.0.0 Release

Reinhard Max <max@suse.de> — 2005-01-12T16:29:34Z

On Wed, 12 Jan 2005 at 16:29, Peter Eisentraut wrote:

> In the meantime I have received confirmation from Reinhard Max that 
> his test methods match our requirements, so the list will be 
> completed with the other platforms he reported in due time.

Today I've updated the RPMs on the FTP server to RC5, which implicitly 
means that PostgreSQL passes the regression tests on the provided 
platforms. 
ftp://ftp.suse.com/pub/projects/postgresql/postgresql-8.0.0rc5

I have also successfully compiled and tested RC5 (but not yet created 
RPMs) on the following platforms:

  8.1-i386
  8.2-i386
  sles8-i386 
  sles8-ia64
  sles8-ppc
  sles8-ppc64
  sles8-s390
  sles8-s390x

The only failure I have to report is sles8-x86_64, where I am getting 
segfaults from psql during the regression tests. I am still 
investigating what's going on there....

cu
	Reinhard

Re: SUSE port (was [ANNOUNCE] PostgreSQL 8.0.0 Release

Reinhard Max <max@suse.de> — 2005-01-12T17:20:14Z

On Wed, 12 Jan 2005 at 17:29, Reinhard Max wrote:

> The only failure I have to report is sles8-x86_64, where I am 
> getting segfaults from psql during the regression tests.

The segfault in a call to snprintf somewhere in libpq's kerberos5 
code. So when I leave out --with-krb5 it compiles and passes the test 
suite without problems.

I am still not sure whether the kerberos library, glibc, or PostgreSQL 
is to blame, or if it's a combination of bugs in these components that 
triggers the segfault.

More details to follow...

cu
	Reinhard

Much Ado About COUNT(*)

Jonah H. Harris <jharris@tvi.edu> — 2005-01-12T17:42:56Z

Tom, Bruce, and others involved in this recurring TODO discussion…

First, let me start by saying that I understand this has been discussed 
many times before; however, I’d like to see what the current state of 
affairs is regarding the possibility of using a unique index scan to 
speed up the COUNT aggregate.

A few of my customers (some familiar with Oracle) are confused by the 
amount of time it takes PostgreSQL to come up with the result and are 
hesitating to use it because they think it’s too slow.  I’ve tried to 
explain to them why it is slow, but in doing so I’ve come to see that 
it may be worth working on.

I've reviewed the many messages regarding COUNT(*) and have looked 
through some of the source (8.0-RC4) and have arrived at the following 
questions:

1.  Is there any answer to Bruce’s last statement in the thread, “Re: 
[PERFORM] COUNT(*) again (was Re: Index/Function organized” 
(http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-hackers/2003-10/msg00245.php)

2.  What do you think about a separate plan type such as IndexOnlyScan? 
 Good/stupid/what is he on?

3.  Assuming that Bruce’s aforementioned statement is correct, what 
hidden performance bottlenecks might there be?

4.  What is the consensus of updating a per-relation value containing 
the row counts?

Though not exactly like PostgreSQL, Oracle uses MVCC and performs an 
index scan on a unique value for all unqualified counts.  Admittedly, 
counts are faster than they used to be, but this is always a complaint 
I hear from open source users and professionals alike.

I’ve been pretty busy, and I still need to get the user/group quota 
working with 8.0 and forward the diffs to you all, but I would be
willing to work on speeding up the count(*) if you guys give me
your input.

As always, keep up the good work!

Respectfully,

Jonah H. Harris, Senior Web Administrator
Albuquerque TVI
505.224.4814

Re: Much Ado About COUNT(*)

Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> — 2005-01-12T18:24:26Z

"Jonah H. Harris" <jharris@tvi.edu> writes:
> Tom, Bruce, and others involved in this recurring TODO discussion
> First, let me start by saying that I understand this has been discussed 
> many times before; however, Id like to see what the current state of 
> affairs is regarding the possibility of using a unique index scan to 
> speed up the COUNT aggregate.

It's not happening, because no one has come up with a workable proposal.
In particular, we're not willing to slow down every other operation in
order to make COUNT-*-with-no-WHERE-clause faster.

			regards, tom lane

segfault caused by heimdal (was: SUSE port)

Reinhard Max <max@suse.de> — 2005-01-12T18:36:52Z

On Wed, 12 Jan 2005 at 18:20, Reinhard Max wrote:

> I am still not sure whether the kerberos library, glibc, or 
> PostgreSQL is to blame, or if it's a combination of bugs in these 
> components that triggers the segfault.

The problem is, that the heimdal implementation of kerberos5 used on 
sles8 needs an extra include statement for com_err.h in 
src/interfaces/libpq/fe-auth.c to get the prototype for 
error_message(), while on newer SUSE-releases using the MIT Kerberos5 
implementation this prototype is provided by krb5.h itself.

So I suspect this bug might hit everyone using heimdal, but it only 
gets triggered when one of the calls to kerberos in 
src/interfaces/libpq/fe-auth.c returns with an error.

I am still not sure why the crash only happened on x86_64.

cu
	Reinhard

Re: Much Ado About COUNT(*)

Jonah H. Harris <jharris@tvi.edu> — 2005-01-12T18:55:29Z

Tom,

Thank you for your prompt response and I understand your statement 
completely.

My thinking is that we may be able to implement index usage for not only 
unqualified counts, but also on any query that can be satisfied by the 
index itself. Index usage seems to be a feature that could speed up 
PostgreSQL for many people. I'm working on a project right now that 
could actually take advantage of it.

Looking at the message boards, there is significant interest in the 
COUNT(*) aspect. However, rather than solely address the COUNT(*) TODO 
item, why not fix it and add additional functionality found in 
commercial databases as well? I believe Oracle has had this feature 
since 7.3 and I know people take advantage of it.

I understand that you guys have a lot more important stuff to do than 
work on something like this. Unlike other people posting the request and 
whining about the speed, I'm offering to take it on and fix it.

Take this mesage as my willingness to propose and implement this 
feature. Any details, pitfalls, or suggestions are appreciated.

Thanks again!

-Jonah

Tom Lane wrote:

>"Jonah H. Harris" <jharris@tvi.edu> writes:
>  
>
>>Tom, Bruce, and others involved in this recurring TODO discussion…
>>First, let me start by saying that I understand this has been discussed 
>>many times before; however, I’d like to see what the current state of 
>>affairs is regarding the possibility of using a unique index scan to 
>>speed up the COUNT aggregate.
>>    
>>
>
>It's not happening, because no one has come up with a workable proposal.
>In particular, we're not willing to slow down every other operation in
>order to make COUNT-*-with-no-WHERE-clause faster.
>
>			regards, tom lane
>  
>

Re: [HACKERS] segfault caused by heimdal (was: SUSE port)

Reinhard Max <max@suse.de> — 2005-01-12T19:11:32Z

Sorry for following up to myself once more...

On Wed, 12 Jan 2005 at 19:36, Reinhard Max wrote:

> The problem is, that the heimdal implementation of kerberos5 used on 
> sles8 needs an extra include statement for com_err.h in 
> src/interfaces/libpq/fe-auth.c to get the prototype for 
> error_message(), while on newer SUSE-releases using the MIT 
> Kerberos5 implementation this prototype is provided by krb5.h 
> itself.

after finding and reading the thread on HACKERS about com_err.h from 
last December, I think either should configure check if including 
krb5.h is sufficient for getting the prototype of error_message(), or 
a conditional include for krb5.h should be added to 
src/interfaces/libpq/fe-auth.c.

A proposed patch to achieve the latter is attached to this mail.

Either way will lead to a build time error when error_message() isn't 
declared or com_err.h can't be found, which is better than the current 
situation where only a warning about a missing prototype is issued, 
but compilation continues resulting in a broken libpq.

cu
	Reinhard

Re: Much Ado About COUNT(*)

Greg Stark <gsstark@mit.edu> — 2005-01-12T19:23:44Z

"Jonah H. Harris" <jharris@tvi.edu> writes:

> Looking at the message boards, there is significant interest in the COUNT(*)
> aspect. However, rather than solely address the COUNT(*) TODO item, why not fix
> it and add additional functionality found in commercial databases as well? I
> believe Oracle has had this feature since 7.3 and I know people take advantage
> of it.

I think part of the problem is that there's a bunch of features related to
these types of queries and the lines between them blur. 

You seem to be talking about putting visibility information inside indexes for
so index-only plans can be performed. But you're also talking about queries
like "select count(*) from foo" with no where clauses. Such a query wouldn't
be helped by index-only scans.

Perhaps you're thinking about caching the total number of records in a global
piece of state like a materialized view? That would be a nice feature but I
think it should done as a general materialized view implementation, not a
special case solution for just this one query.

Perhaps you're thinking of the min/max problem of being able to use indexes to
pick out just the tuples satisfying the min/max constraint. That seems to me
to be one of the more tractable problems in this area but it would still
require lots of work.

I suggest you post a specific query you find is slow. Then discuss how you
think it ought to be executed and why.

-- 
greg

Re: segfault caused by heimdal (was: SUSE port)

Kurt Roeckx <q@ping.be> — 2005-01-12T19:28:39Z

On Wed, Jan 12, 2005 at 07:36:52PM +0100, Reinhard Max wrote:
> 
> The problem is, that the heimdal implementation of kerberos5 used on 
> sles8 needs an extra include statement for com_err.h in 
> src/interfaces/libpq/fe-auth.c to get the prototype for 
> error_message(), while on newer SUSE-releases using the MIT Kerberos5 
> implementation this prototype is provided by krb5.h itself.
[...]
> I am still not sure why the crash only happened on x86_64.

This is because the proper prototype is:
extern char const *error_message (long);

And C automaticly generates a prototype with in int instead.

On 32 bit platforms this ussualy isn't a problem since both int
and long are ussualy both 32 bit, but on x86_64 a long is 64 bit
while an int is only 32.


Kurt

Re: segfault caused by heimdal (was: SUSE port)

Reinhard Max <max@suse.de> — 2005-01-12T19:34:40Z

On Wed, 12 Jan 2005 at 20:28, Kurt Roeckx wrote:

> This is because the proper prototype is:
> extern char const *error_message (long);
> 
> And C automaticly generates a prototype with in int instead.
> 
> On 32 bit platforms this ussualy isn't a problem since both int and 
> long are ussualy both 32 bit, but on x86_64 a long is 64 bit while 
> an int is only 32.

It's actually not the long argument, but the returned pointer that 
caused the segfault.

But this only explains why it didn't crash on i386, but not why it 
also didn't crash on IA64, ppc64 and s390x which are also LP64 
platforms.

cu
	Reinhard

Re: Much Ado About COUNT(*)

Jonah H. Harris <jharris@tvi.edu> — 2005-01-12T19:36:15Z

Greg Stark wrote:

>I think part of the problem is that there's a bunch of features related to
>these types of queries and the lines between them blur. 
>
>You seem to be talking about putting visibility information inside indexes for
>so index-only plans can be performed. But you're also talking about queries
>like "select count(*) from foo" with no where clauses. Such a query wouldn't
>be helped by index-only scans.
>
>Perhaps you're thinking about caching the total number of records in a global
>piece of state like a materialized view? That would be a nice feature but I
>think it should done as a general materialized view implementation, not a
>special case solution for just this one query.
>
>Perhaps you're thinking of the min/max problem of being able to use indexes to
>pick out just the tuples satisfying the min/max constraint. That seems to me
>to be one of the more tractable problems in this area but it would still
>require lots of work.
>
>I suggest you post a specific query you find is slow. Then discuss how you
>think it ought to be executed and why.
>
>  
>
You are correct, I am proposing to add visibility to the indexes.

As for unqualified counts, I believe that they could take advantage of 
an index-only scan as it requires much less I/O to perform an index scan 
than a sequential scan on large tables.

Min/Max would also take advantage of index only scans but say, for 
example, that someone has the following:

Relation SOME_USERS
user_id BIGINT PK
user_nm varchar(32) UNIQUE INDEX
some_other_attributes...

If an application needs the user names, it would run SELECT user_nm FROM 
SOME_USERS... in the current implementation this would require a 
sequential scan.  On a relation which contains 1M+ tuples, this requires 
either a lot of I/O or a lot of cache.  An index scan would immensely 
speed up this query.

Re: Much Ado About COUNT(*)

Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> — 2005-01-12T19:41:56Z

"Jonah H. Harris" <jharris@tvi.edu> writes:
> My thinking is that we may be able to implement index usage for not only 
> unqualified counts, but also on any query that can be satisfied by the 
> index itself.

The fundamental problem is that you can't do it without adding at least
16 bytes, probably 20, to the size of an index tuple header.  That would
double the physical size of an index on a simple column (eg an integer
or timestamp).  The extra I/O costs and extra maintenance costs are
unattractive to say the least.  And it takes away some of the
justification for the whole thing, which is that reading an index is
much cheaper than reading the main table.  That's only true if the index
is much smaller than the main table ...

			regards, tom lane

Re: Much Ado About COUNT(*)

Jonah H. Harris <jharris@tvi.edu> — 2005-01-12T19:52:53Z

Tom Lane wrote:

>The fundamental problem is that you can't do it without adding at least
>16 bytes, probably 20, to the size of an index tuple header.  That would
>double the physical size of an index on a simple column (eg an integer
>or timestamp).  The extra I/O costs and extra maintenance costs are
>unattractive to say the least.  And it takes away some of the
>justification for the whole thing, which is that reading an index is
>much cheaper than reading the main table.  That's only true if the index
>is much smaller than the main table ...
>
>			regards, tom lane
>  
>
I recognize the added cost of implementing index only scans.  As storage 
is relatively cheap these days, everyone I know is more concerned about 
faster access to data.  Similarly, it would still be faster to scan the 
indexes than to perform a sequential scan over the entire relation for 
this case.  I also acknowledge that it would be a negative impact to 
indexes where this type of acces isn't required, as you suggested and 
which is more than likely not the case.  I just wonder what more people 
would be happier with and whether the added 16-20 bytes would be 
extremely noticable considering most 1-3 year old hardware.

Re: [HACKERS] segfault caused by heimdal (was: SUSE port)

Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> — 2005-01-12T19:59:42Z

Reinhard Max <max@suse.de> writes:
> --- src/interfaces/libpq/fe-auth.c
> +++ src/interfaces/libpq/fe-auth.c
> @@ -244,6 +244,11 @@
>  
>  #include <krb5.h>
>  
> +#if !defined(__COM_ERR_H) && !defined(__COM_ERR_H__)
> +/* if krb5.h didn't include it already */
> +#include <com_err.h>
> +#endif
> +
>  /*
>   * pg_an_to_ln -- return the local name corresponding to an authentication
>   *				  name

That looks like a reasonable fix, but isn't it needed in
backend/libpq/auth.c as well?

			regards, tom lane

Re: Much Ado About COUNT(*)

Greg Stark <gsstark@mit.edu> — 2005-01-12T20:08:37Z

"Jonah H. Harris" <jharris@tvi.edu> writes:

> You are correct, I am proposing to add visibility to the indexes.

Then I think the only way you'll get any support is if it's an option. Since
it would incur a performance penalty on updates and deletes.

> As for unqualified counts, I believe that they could take advantage of an
> index-only scan as it requires much less I/O to perform an index scan than a
> sequential scan on large tables.

No, sequential scans require slightly more i/o than index scans. More
importantly they require random access i/o instead of sequential i/o which is
much slower.

Though this depends. If the tuple is very wide then the index might be faster
to scan since it would only contain the data from the fields being indexed.

This brings to mind another approach. It might be handy to split the heap for
a table into multiple heaps. The visibility information would only be in one
of the heaps. This would be a big win if many of the fields were rarely used,
especially if they're rarely used by sequential scans.

> Relation SOME_USERS
> user_id BIGINT PK
> user_nm varchar(32) UNIQUE INDEX
> some_other_attributes...

What's with the fetish with unique indexes? None of this is any different for
unique indexes versus non-unique indexes.

-- 
greg

Re: Much Ado About COUNT(*)

Rod Taylor <pg@rbt.ca> — 2005-01-12T20:09:04Z

On Wed, 2005-01-12 at 12:52 -0700, Jonah H. Harris wrote:
> Tom Lane wrote:
> 
> >The fundamental problem is that you can't do it without adding at least
> >16 bytes, probably 20, to the size of an index tuple header.  That would
> >double the physical size of an index on a simple column (eg an integer
> >or timestamp).  The extra I/O costs and extra maintenance costs are
> >unattractive to say the least.  And it takes away some of the
> >justification for the whole thing, which is that reading an index is
> >much cheaper than reading the main table.  That's only true if the index
> >is much smaller than the main table ...

> I recognize the added cost of implementing index only scans.  As storage 
> is relatively cheap these days, everyone I know is more concerned about 
> faster access to data.  Similarly, it would still be faster to scan the 
> indexes than to perform a sequential scan over the entire relation for 
> this case.  I also acknowledge that it would be a negative impact to 
> indexes where this type of acces isn't required, as you suggested and 
> which is more than likely not the case.  I just wonder what more people 
> would be happier with and whether the added 16-20 bytes would be 
> extremely noticable considering most 1-3 year old hardware.

I'm very much against this. After some quick math, my database would
grow by about 40GB if this was done. Storage isn't that cheap when you
include the hot-backup master, various slaves, RAM for caching of this
additional index space, backup storage unit on the SAN, tape backups,
additional spindles required to maintain same performance due to
increased IO because I don't very many queries which would receive an
advantage (big one for me -- we started buying spindles for performance
a long time ago), etc.

Make it a new index type if you like, but don't impose any new
performance constraints on folks who have little to no advantage from
the above proposal.

Re: [HACKERS] segfault caused by heimdal (was: SUSE port)

Reinhard Max <max@suse.de> — 2005-01-12T20:10:16Z

On Wed, 12 Jan 2005 at 14:59, Tom Lane wrote:

> That looks like a reasonable fix, but isn't it needed in 
> backend/libpq/auth.c as well?

Yes, indeed:

auth.c: In function `pg_krb5_init':
auth.c:202: warning: implicit declaration of function `com_err'

cu
	Reinhard

Re: Much Ado About COUNT(*)

Andrew Dunstan <andrew@dunslane.net> — 2005-01-12T20:14:51Z

Jonah H. Harris said:
> Tom Lane wrote:
>
>>The fundamental problem is that you can't do it without adding at least
>>16 bytes, probably 20, to the size of an index tuple header.  That
>>would double the physical size of an index on a simple column (eg an
>>integer or timestamp).  The extra I/O costs and extra maintenance costs
>>are unattractive to say the least.  And it takes away some of the
>>justification for the whole thing, which is that reading an index is
>>much cheaper than reading the main table.  That's only true if the
>>index is much smaller than the main table ...
>>
> I recognize the added cost of implementing index only scans.  As
> storage  is relatively cheap these days, everyone I know is more
> concerned about  faster access to data.  Similarly, it would still be
> faster to scan the  indexes than to perform a sequential scan over the
> entire relation for  this case.  I also acknowledge that it would be a
> negative impact to  indexes where this type of acces isn't required, as
> you suggested and  which is more than likely not the case.  I just
> wonder what more people  would be happier with and whether the added
> 16-20 bytes would be
> extremely noticable considering most 1-3 year old hardware.
>
>


Monetary cost is not the issue - cost in time is the issue.

cheers

andrew

Re: Much Ado About COUNT(*)

Jeff Davis <jdavis-pgsql@empires.org> — 2005-01-12T20:41:38Z


> No, sequential scans require slightly more i/o than index scans. More
> importantly they require random access i/o instead of sequential i/o which is
> much slower.
> 

Just to clear it up, I think what you meant was the index requires
random i/o, not the table. And the word "slightly" depends on the size
of the table I suppose. And of course it also depends on how many tuples
you actually need to retrieve (in this case we're talking about
retrieving all the tuples ragardless).

> Though this depends. If the tuple is very wide then the index might be faster
> to scan since it would only contain the data from the fields being indexed.
> 

That, and it seems strange on the surface to visit every entry in an
index, since normally indexes are used to find only a small fraction of
the tuples.

> This brings to mind another approach. It might be handy to split the heap for
> a table into multiple heaps. The visibility information would only be in one
> of the heaps. This would be a big win if many of the fields were rarely used,
> especially if they're rarely used by sequential scans.

Except then the two heaps would have to be joined somehow for every
operation. It makes sense some times to (if you have a very wide table)
split off the rarely-accessed attributes into a seperate table to be
joined one-to-one when those attributes are needed. To have the system
do that automatically would create problems if the attributes that are
split off are frequently accessed, right?

Perhaps you could optionally create a seperate copy of the same tuple
visibility information linked in a way similar to an index. It still
seems like you gain very little, and only in some very rare situation
that I've never encountered (I've never had the need to do frequent
unqualified count()s at the expense of other operations). 

Now, it seems like it might make a little more sense to use an index for
min()/max(), but that's a different story.

Regards,
	Jeff Davis

Re: Much Ado About COUNT(*)

Jonah H. Harris <jharris@tvi.edu> — 2005-01-12T20:42:58Z

Andrew Dunstan wrote:

>Monetary cost is not the issue - cost in time is the issue.
>
>cheers
>
>andrew
>  
>
We seem to be in agreement.  I'm looking for faster/smarter access to 
data, not the monetary cost of doing so.  Isn't it faster/smarter to 
satisfy a query with the index rather than sequentially scanning an 
entire relation if it is possible?

Replying to the list as a whole:

If this is such a bad idea, why do other database systems use it?  As a 
businessperson myself, it doesn't seem logical to me that commercial 
database companies would spend money on implementing this feature if it 
wouldn't be used.  Remember guys, I'm just trying to help.

Re: Much Ado About COUNT(*)

Jonah H. Harris <jharris@tvi.edu> — 2005-01-12T20:59:07Z

Rod Taylor wrote:

>
>grow by about 40GB if this was done. Storage isn't that cheap when you
>include the hot-backup master, various slaves, RAM for caching of this
>additional index space, backup storage unit on the SAN, tape backups,
>additional spindles required to maintain same performance due to
>increased IO because I don't very many queries which would receive an
>advantage (big one for me -- we started buying spindles for performance
>a long time ago), etc.
>  
>
Thanks for the calculation and example.  This would be a hefty amount of 
overhead if none of your queries would benefit from this change.

>Make it a new index type if you like, but don't impose any new
>performance constraints on folks who have little to no advantage from
>the above proposal.
>  
>
I agree with you that some people may not see any benefit from this and 
that it may look worse performance/storage-wise.  I've considered this 
route, but it seems like more of a workaround than a solution.

Re: Much Ado About COUNT(*)

Jeff Davis <jdavis-pgsql@empires.org> — 2005-01-12T20:59:51Z

> >
> I recognize the added cost of implementing index only scans.  As storage 
> is relatively cheap these days, everyone I know is more concerned about 
> faster access to data.  Similarly, it would still be faster to scan the 
> indexes than to perform a sequential scan over the entire relation for 
> this case.  I also acknowledge that it would be a negative impact to 
> indexes where this type of acces isn't required, as you suggested and 
> which is more than likely not the case.  I just wonder what more people 
> would be happier with and whether the added 16-20 bytes would be 
> extremely noticable considering most 1-3 year old hardware.

I think perhaps you missed the point: it's not about price. If an index
takes up more space, it will also take more time to read that index.
16-20 bytes per index entry is way too much extra overhead for most
people, no matter what hardware they have. That overhead also tightens
the performace at what is already the bottleneck for almost every DB:
i/o bandwidth.

The cost to count the tuples is the cost to read that visibility
information for each tuple in the table. A seqscan is the most efficient
way to do that since it's sequential i/o, rather than random i/o. The
only reason the word "index" even comes up is because it is inefficient
to retrieve a lot of extra attributes you don't need from a table.

You might be able to pack that visibility information a little bit more
densely in an index than a table, assuming that the table has more than
a couple columns. But if you shoehorn the visibility information into an
index, you destroy much of the value of an index to most people, who
require the index to be compact to be efficient.

An index isn't really the place for something when all you really want
to do is a sequential scan over a smaller amount of data (so that the
visibility information is more dense). Make a narrow table, and seqscan
over that. Then, if you need more attributes in the table, just do a
one-to-one join with a seperate table.

Regards,
	Jeff Davis

Re: Much Ado About COUNT(*)

Jon Jensen <jon@endpoint.com> — 2005-01-12T21:02:23Z

On Wed, 12 Jan 2005, Jonah H. Harris wrote:

> Andrew Dunstan wrote:
>
>> Monetary cost is not the issue - cost in time is the issue.
>> 
> We seem to be in agreement.  I'm looking for faster/smarter access to data, 
> not the monetary cost of doing so.  Isn't it faster/smarter to satisfy a 
> query with the index rather than sequentially scanning an entire relation if 
> it is possible?
>
> Replying to the list as a whole:
>
> If this is such a bad idea, why do other database systems use it?  As a 
> businessperson myself, it doesn't seem logical to me that commercial database 
> companies would spend money on implementing this feature if it wouldn't be 
> used.  Remember guys, I'm just trying to help.

If you're willing to do the work, and have the motivation, probably the 
best thing to do is just do it. Then you can use empirical measurements of 
the effect on disk space, speed of various operations, etc. to discuss the 
merits/demerits of your particular implementation.

Then others don't need to feel so threatened by the potential change. 
Either it'll be (1) an obvious win, or (2) a mixed bag, where allowing the 
new way to be specified as an option is a possibility, or (3) you'll have 
to go back to the drawing board if it's an obvious loss.

This problem's been talked about a lot, but seeing some code and metrics 
from someone with a personal interest in solving it would really be 
progress IMHO.

Jon

-- 
Jon Jensen
End Point Corporation
http://www.endpoint.com/
Software development with Interchange, Perl, PostgreSQL, Apache, Linux, ...

Re: Much Ado About COUNT(*)

Jonah H. Harris <jharris@tvi.edu> — 2005-01-12T21:06:32Z

Jon Jensen wrote:

> If you're willing to do the work, and have the motivation, probably 
> the best thing to do is just do it. Then you can use empirical 
> measurements of the effect on disk space, speed of various operations, 
> etc. to discuss the merits/demerits of your particular implementation.
>
> Then others don't need to feel so threatened by the potential change. 
> Either it'll be (1) an obvious win, or (2) a mixed bag, where allowing 
> the new way to be specified as an option is a possibility, or (3) 
> you'll have to go back to the drawing board if it's an obvious loss.
>
> This problem's been talked about a lot, but seeing some code and 
> metrics from someone with a personal interest in solving it would 
> really be progress IMHO.

Jon,

This is pretty much where I'm coming from.  I'm looking at working on 
this and I'd rather discuss suggestions for how to implement this than 
whether we should have it, etc.  If it turns out better, great; if not, 
then I just wasted my time.  I really do appreciate everyone's comments 
and suggestions.

Thanks!

-Jonah

Re: Much Ado About COUNT(*)

Jeff Davis <jdavis-pgsql@empires.org> — 2005-01-12T21:17:57Z

> >
> We seem to be in agreement.  I'm looking for faster/smarter access to 
> data, not the monetary cost of doing so.  Isn't it faster/smarter to 
> satisfy a query with the index rather than sequentially scanning an 
> entire relation if it is possible?
> 

You have to scan every tuple's visibility information no matter what.
Sequential i/o is fastest (per byte), so the most efficient possible
method is seqscan. Unfortunately for count(*), the tables also store
columns, which are really just clutter as you're moving through the
table looking for visibility information.

Indexes are designed for searches, not exhaustive retrieval of all
records. If you can store that visibility information in a seperate
place so that it's not cluttered by unneeded attributes that could be
helpful, but an index is not the place for that. If you store that in
the index, you are really imposing a new cost on yourself: the cost to
do random i/o as you're jumping around the index trying to access every
entry, plus the index metadata.

You could make a narrow table and join with the other attributes. That
might be a good place that wouldn't clutter up the visibility
information much (it would just need a primary key). A seqscan over that
would be quite efficient.


> If this is such a bad idea, why do other database systems use it?  As a 
> businessperson myself, it doesn't seem logical to me that commercial 
> database companies would spend money on implementing this feature if it 
> wouldn't be used.  Remember guys, I'm just trying to help.
> 

Some databases use an internal counter to count rows as they are
added/deleted. This does not give accurate results in a database that
supports ACID -- more specifically a database that implements the
"isolation" part of ACID. Two concurrent transactions, if the database
supports proper isolation, could have two different results for count(*)
and both would be correct. That makes all the "optimized count(*)"
databases really just give a close number, not the real number. If you
just want a close number, there are other ways of doing that in
PostgreSQL that people have already mentioned.

If you know of a database that supports proper isolation and also has a
faster count(*) I would be interested to know what it is. There may be a
way to do it without sacrificing in other areas, but I don't know what
it is. Does someone know exactly what oracle actually does?

Regards,
	Jeff Davis

Re: Much Ado About COUNT(*)

Bruno Wolff III <bruno@wolff.to> — 2005-01-12T21:20:43Z

On Wed, Jan 12, 2005 at 13:42:58 -0700,
  "Jonah H. Harris" <jharris@tvi.edu> wrote:
> We seem to be in agreement.  I'm looking for faster/smarter access to 
> data, not the monetary cost of doing so.  Isn't it faster/smarter to 
> satisfy a query with the index rather than sequentially scanning an 
> entire relation if it is possible?

Not necessarily. Also note that Postgres will use an index scan for
count(*) if there is a relatively selective WHERE clause.

> Replying to the list as a whole:
> 
> If this is such a bad idea, why do other database systems use it?  As a 
> businessperson myself, it doesn't seem logical to me that commercial 
> database companies would spend money on implementing this feature if it 
> wouldn't be used.  Remember guys, I'm just trying to help.

Other databases use different ways of handling tuples that are only visible
to some concurrent transactions.

Postgres is also flexible enough that you can make your own materialized
view (using triggers) to handle count(*) if that makes sense for you.

Re: Much Ado About COUNT(*)

Jonah H. Harris <jharris@tvi.edu> — 2005-01-12T21:36:55Z

Jeff Davis wrote:

>Does someone know exactly what oracle actually does?
>
>  
>
some old info resides here, http://www.orsweb.com/techniques/fastfull.html

I'll try and find something more recent.

Re: [HACKERS] segfault caused by heimdal (was: SUSE port)

Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> — 2005-01-12T21:38:44Z

Reinhard Max <max@suse.de> writes:
> On Wed, 12 Jan 2005 at 14:59, Tom Lane wrote:
>> That looks like a reasonable fix, but isn't it needed in 
>> backend/libpq/auth.c as well?

> Yes, indeed:
> auth.c: In function `pg_krb5_init':
> auth.c:202: warning: implicit declaration of function `com_err'

OK, patch applied in both files.

			regards, tom lane

Re: Much Ado About COUNT(*)

Marek Mosiewicz <marekmosiewicz@poczta.onet.pl> — 2005-01-12T21:42:06Z

I agree with last statement. count(*) is not most important.
Most nice thing with index only scan is when it contains more than one
column.
When there is join among many tables where from each table only one or few
columns are taken
it take boost query incredibly.

For exmaple on when you have customer table and ID, NAME index on it then:

select c.name,i.* from customer c, invoice i where c.id=i.customer_id

then it is HUGE difference there. without index only scan you require to
make index io and
random table access (assuming no full scan). With index only scan you need
only
index scan and can skip expensive random table io.
It is very simple but powerful optmization in many cases to reduce join
expence on many
difficult queries.
You can have get some kind of index organized table (you use only index so
in fact it is
ordered table)

Selecting only few columns is quite often scenario in reporting.

-----Original Message-----
From: pgsql-hackers-owner@postgresql.org
[mailto:pgsql-hackers-owner@postgresql.org]On Behalf Of Jonah H. Harris
Sent: Wednesday, January 12, 2005 8:36 PM
To: Greg Stark
Cc: pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] Much Ado About COUNT(*)

Greg Stark wrote:

>I think part of the problem is that there's a bunch of features related to
>these types of queries and the lines between them blur.
>
>You seem to be talking about putting visibility information inside indexes
for
>so index-only plans can be performed. But you're also talking about queries
>like "select count(*) from foo" with no where clauses. Such a query
wouldn't
>be helped by index-only scans.
>
>Perhaps you're thinking about caching the total number of records in a
global
>piece of state like a materialized view? That would be a nice feature but I
>think it should done as a general materialized view implementation, not a
>special case solution for just this one query.
>
>Perhaps you're thinking of the min/max problem of being able to use indexes
to
>pick out just the tuples satisfying the min/max constraint. That seems to
me
>to be one of the more tractable problems in this area but it would still
>require lots of work.
>
>I suggest you post a specific query you find is slow. Then discuss how you
>think it ought to be executed and why.
>
>
>
You are correct, I am proposing to add visibility to the indexes.

As for unqualified counts, I believe that they could take advantage of
an index-only scan as it requires much less I/O to perform an index scan
than a sequential scan on large tables.

Min/Max would also take advantage of index only scans but say, for
example, that someone has the following:

Relation SOME_USERS
user_id BIGINT PK
user_nm varchar(32) UNIQUE INDEX
some_other_attributes...

If an application needs the user names, it would run SELECT user_nm FROM
SOME_USERS... in the current implementation this would require a
sequential scan.  On a relation which contains 1M+ tuples, this requires
either a lot of I/O or a lot of cache.  An index scan would immensely
speed up this query.

---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
TIP 5: Have you checked our extensive FAQ?

               http://www.postgresql.org/docs/faqs/FAQ.html

Re: Much Ado About COUNT(*)

Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@dcc.uchile.cl> — 2005-01-12T21:43:46Z

On Wed, Jan 12, 2005 at 12:41:38PM -0800, Jeff Davis wrote:

> Except then the two heaps would have to be joined somehow for every
> operation. It makes sense some times to (if you have a very wide table)
> split off the rarely-accessed attributes into a seperate table to be
> joined one-to-one when those attributes are needed. To have the system
> do that automatically would create problems if the attributes that are
> split off are frequently accessed, right?

That mechanism exists right now, and it's called TOAST, dubbed the best
thing since sliced bread.  We even have documentation for it, new as of
our latest RC:

http://developer.postgresql.org/docs/postgres/storage-toast.html

-- 
Alvaro Herrera (<alvherre[@]dcc.uchile.cl>)
"El día que dejes de cambiar dejarás de vivir"

Re: Much Ado About COUNT(*)

Simon Riggs <simon@2ndquadrant.com> — 2005-01-12T21:45:51Z

On Wed, 2005-01-12 at 15:09 -0500, Rod Taylor wrote:
> On Wed, 2005-01-12 at 12:52 -0700, Jonah H. Harris wrote:
> > Tom Lane wrote:
> > 
> > >The fundamental problem is that you can't do it without adding at least
> > >16 bytes, probably 20, to the size of an index tuple header.  That would
> > >double the physical size of an index on a simple column (eg an integer
> > >or timestamp).  The extra I/O costs and extra maintenance costs are
> > >unattractive to say the least.  And it takes away some of the
> > >justification for the whole thing, which is that reading an index is
> > >much cheaper than reading the main table.  That's only true if the index
> > >is much smaller than the main table ...
> 
> > I recognize the added cost of implementing index only scans.  As storage 
> > is relatively cheap these days, everyone I know is more concerned about 
> > faster access to data.  Similarly, it would still be faster to scan the 
> > indexes than to perform a sequential scan over the entire relation for 
> > this case.  I also acknowledge that it would be a negative impact to 
> > indexes where this type of acces isn't required, as you suggested and 
> > which is more than likely not the case.  I just wonder what more people 
> > would be happier with and whether the added 16-20 bytes would be 
> > extremely noticable considering most 1-3 year old hardware.
> 
> I'm very much against this. After some quick math, my database would
> grow by about 40GB if this was done. Storage isn't that cheap when you
> include the hot-backup master, various slaves, RAM for caching of this
> additional index space, backup storage unit on the SAN, tape backups,
> additional spindles required to maintain same performance due to
> increased IO because I don't very many queries which would receive an
> advantage (big one for me -- we started buying spindles for performance
> a long time ago), etc.
> 
> Make it a new index type if you like, but don't impose any new
> performance constraints on folks who have little to no advantage from
> the above proposal.

Jonah,

People's objections are:
- this shouldn't be the system default, so would need to be implemented
as a non-default option on a b-tree index
- its a lot of code and if you want it, you gotta do it

Remember you'll need to
- agree all changes via the list and accept that redesigns may be
required, even at a late stage of coding
- write visibility code into the index
- write an additional node type to handle the new capability
- microarchitecture performance testing so you know whether its really
worthwhile, covering a range of cases
- add code to the optimiser to so it can estimate the cost of using this
and to know when to do this
- add a column to the catalog to record whether an index has the
visibility option
- add code to the parser to invoke the option
- update pg_dump so that it correctly dumps tables with that option
- copy and adapt all of the existing tests for the new mechanism
- document it

If you really want to do all of that, I'm sure you'd get help, but
mostly it will be you that has to drive the change through.

There are some other benefits of that implementation:
You'd be able to vacuum the index (only), allowing index access to
remain reasonably constant, even as the table itself grew from dead
rows.

The index could then make sensible the reasonably common practice of
using a covered index - i.e. putting additional columns into the index
to satisfy the whole query just from the index.

-- 
Best Regards, Simon Riggs

Re: Much Ado About COUNT(*)

Jonah H. Harris <jharris@tvi.edu> — 2005-01-12T21:48:33Z

Bruno Wolff III wrote:

>On Wed, Jan 12, 2005 at 14:09:07 -0700,
>  "Jonah H. Harris" <jharris@tvi.edu> wrote:
>
>Please keep stuff posted to the list so that other people can contribute
>and learn from the discussion unless there is a particular reason to
>limited who is involved in the discussion.
>
>  
>
not a problem.

>Perhaps you think that the count is somehow saved in the index so that
>you don't have to scan through the whole index to get the number of
>rows in a table? That isn't the case, but is what creating a materialized
>view would effectively do for you.
>  
>
I understand that the count is not stored in the index.  I am saying 
that it may be faster to generate the count off the keys in the index.

I shouldn't have titled this message COUNT(*) as that isn't the only 
thing I'm trying to accomplish.

Re: Much Ado About COUNT(*)

Bruno Wolff III <bruno@wolff.to> — 2005-01-12T21:56:25Z

On Wed, Jan 12, 2005 at 14:09:07 -0700,
  "Jonah H. Harris" <jharris@tvi.edu> wrote:

Please keep stuff posted to the list so that other people can contribute
and learn from the discussion unless there is a particular reason to
limited who is involved in the discussion.

> Bruno,
> 
> Thanks for the information.  I was told that PostgreSQL couldn't use 
> index scans for count(*) because of the visibility issue.  Has something 
> changed or was I told incorrectly?

It isn't that it can't, it is that for cases where you are counting more
than a few percent of a table, it will be faster to use a sequential
scan. Part of the reason is that for any hits you get in the index, you
have to check in the table to make sure the current transaction can see
the current tuple. Even if you could just get away with using just an
index scan you are only going to see a constant factor speed up with
probably not too big of a constant.

Perhaps you think that the count is somehow saved in the index so that
you don't have to scan through the whole index to get the number of
rows in a table? That isn't the case, but is what creating a materialized
view would effectively do for you.

Re: Much Ado About COUNT(*)

Jonah H. Harris <jharris@tvi.edu> — 2005-01-12T21:58:14Z

Simon Riggs wrote:

>Jonah,
>
>People's objections are:
>- this shouldn't be the system default, so would need to be implemented
>as a non-default option on a b-tree index
>- its a lot of code and if you want it, you gotta do it
>
>Remember you'll need to
>- agree all changes via the list and accept that redesigns may be
>required, even at a late stage of coding
>- write visibility code into the index
>- write an additional node type to handle the new capability
>- microarchitecture performance testing so you know whether its really
>worthwhile, covering a range of cases
>- add code to the optimiser to so it can estimate the cost of using this
>and to know when to do this
>- add a column to the catalog to record whether an index has the
>visibility option
>- add code to the parser to invoke the option
>- update pg_dump so that it correctly dumps tables with that option
>- copy and adapt all of the existing tests for the new mechanism
>- document it
>
>If you really want to do all of that, I'm sure you'd get help, but
>mostly it will be you that has to drive the change through.
>
>There are some other benefits of that implementation:
>You'd be able to vacuum the index (only), allowing index access to
>remain reasonably constant, even as the table itself grew from dead
>rows.
>
>The index could then make sensible the reasonably common practice of
>using a covered index - i.e. putting additional columns into the index
>to satisfy the whole query just from the index.
>
>  
>
Simon,

I am willing to take it on and I understand that the workload is mine.  
As long as everyone gives me some suggestions, I'm good it being optional.

-Jonah

Re: Much Ado About COUNT(*)

Rod Taylor <pg@rbt.ca> — 2005-01-12T22:03:58Z

> >The index could then make sensible the reasonably common practice of
> >using a covered index - i.e. putting additional columns into the index
> >to satisfy the whole query just from the index.

> I am willing to take it on and I understand that the workload is mine.  
> As long as everyone gives me some suggestions, I'm good it being optional.

If nobody is working on it, you may find that the below TODO item might
accomplish most of what you're looking for as well as generally
improving performance. The count(*) on a where clause would result in
one index scan and one partial sequential heap scan. Not as fast for the
specific examples you've shown, but far better than today and covers
many other cases as well.

        Fetch heap pages matching index entries in sequential order 
        
        Rather than randomly accessing heap pages based on index
        entries, mark heap pages needing access in a bitmap and do the
        lookups in sequential order. Another method would be to sort
        heap ctids matching the index before accessing the heap rows.

Re: Much Ado About COUNT(*)

Jeff Davis <jdavis-pgsql@empires.org> — 2005-01-13T02:45:09Z

> That mechanism exists right now, and it's called TOAST, dubbed the best
> thing since sliced bread.  We even have documentation for it, new as of
> our latest RC:
> 
> http://developer.postgresql.org/docs/postgres/storage-toast.html
> 

Thanks for the link. It looks like it breaks it up into chunks of about
2KB. I think the conversation was mostly assuming the tables were
somewhat closer to the size of an index. If you have more than 2KB per
tuple, pretty much anything you do with an index would be faster I would
think.

My original concern was if I had a table like (x int) and then postgres
broke the visibility information away form that, that would cause
serious performance problems if postgres had to do a join just to do
"select ... where x = 5". Right?

But of course, we all love toast. Everyone needs to make those wide
tables once in a while, and toast does a great job of taking those
worries away in an efficient way. I am just saying that hopefully we
don't have to seqscan a table with wide tuples very often :)

Regards,
	Jeff Davis

Re: Much Ado About COUNT(*)

Greg Stark <gsstark@mit.edu> — 2005-01-13T03:19:18Z

Jeff Davis <jdavis-pgsql@empires.org> writes:

> But of course, we all love toast. Everyone needs to make those wide
> tables once in a while, and toast does a great job of taking those
> worries away in an efficient way. I am just saying that hopefully we
> don't have to seqscan a table with wide tuples very often :)

I thought toast only handled having individual large columns. So if I have a
2kb text column it'll pull that out of the table for me. But if I have 20
columns each of which have 100 bytes will it still help me? Will it kick in if
I define a single column which stores a record type with 20 columns each of
which have a 100 byte string?

-- 
greg

Re: Much Ado About COUNT(*)

Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> — 2005-01-13T03:50:57Z

Greg Stark <gsstark@mit.edu> writes:
> I thought toast only handled having individual large columns. So if I have a
> 2kb text column it'll pull that out of the table for me. But if I have 20
> columns each of which have 100 bytes will it still help me? Will it kick in if
> I define a single column which stores a record type with 20 columns each of
> which have a 100 byte string?

Yes, and yes.

			regards, tom lane

Re: Much Ado About COUNT(*)

Bruce Momjian <pgman@candle.pha.pa.us> — 2005-01-13T04:15:58Z

Jonah H. Harris wrote:
> 1.  Is there any answer to Bruce?s last statement in the thread, ?Re: 
> [PERFORM] COUNT(*) again (was Re: Index/Function organized? 
> (http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-hackers/2003-10/msg00245.php)

Let me give you my ideas in the above URL and why they are probably
wrong.

My basic idea was to keep a status bit on each index entry telling it if
a previous backend looked at the heap and determined it was valid.  Here
are the details:

Each heap tuple stores the creation and expire xid.  To determine if a
tuple is visible, you have to check the clog to see if the recorded
transaction ids were committed, in progress, or aborted.  When you do
the lookup the first time and the transaction isn't in progress, you can
update a bit to say that the tuple is visible or not.  In fact we have
several tuple bits:

	#define HEAP_XMIN_COMMITTED     0x0100  /* t_xmin committed */
	#define HEAP_XMIN_INVALID       0x0200  /* t_xmin invalid/aborted */
	#define HEAP_XMAX_COMMITTED     0x0400  /* t_xmax committed */
	#define HEAP_XMAX_INVALID       0x0800  /* t_xmax invalid/aborted */

Once set they allow a later backend access to know the visiblity of the
row without having to re-check clog.

The big overhead in index lookups is having to check the heap row for
visibility.  My idea is that once you check the visibility the first
time in the heap, why can't we set some bit in the index so that later
index lookups don't have to look up the heap anymore.  Over time most
index entries would have bits set and you wouldn't need to recheck the
heap.  (Oh, and you could only update the bit when all active
transactions are newer than the creation transaction so we know they
should all see it as visible.)

Now, this would work for telling us that the transaction that created
the index entry was committed or aborted.  Over time most index entries
would have that status.

I think the problem with this idea is expiration.  If a row is deleted
we never go and update the index pointing to that heap, so the creation
status isn't enough for us to know that the row is valid.

I can't think of a way to fix this.  I think it is expensive to clear
the status bits on a row delete because finding an index row that goes
with a particular heap is quite expensive.

So, those are my ideas.  If they could be made to work it would give us
most of the advantages of an index scan with _few_ heap lookups with
very little overhead.

-- 
  Bruce Momjian                        |  http://candle.pha.pa.us
  pgman@candle.pha.pa.us               |  (610) 359-1001
  +  If your life is a hard drive,     |  13 Roberts Road
  +  Christ can be your backup.        |  Newtown Square, Pennsylvania 19073

Re: Much Ado About COUNT(*)

Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> — 2005-01-13T04:54:52Z

Bruce Momjian <pgman@candle.pha.pa.us> writes:
> My basic idea was to keep a status bit on each index entry telling it if
> a previous backend looked at the heap and determined it was valid.

Even if you could track the tuple's committed-good status reliably, that
isn't enough under MVCC.  The tuple might be committed good, and seen
that way by some other backend that set the bit, and yet it's not supposed
to be visible to your older transaction.  Or the reverse at tuple
deletion.

			regards, tom lane

Re: Much Ado About COUNT(*)

Bruce Momjian <pgman@candle.pha.pa.us> — 2005-01-13T04:57:56Z

Tom Lane wrote:
> Bruce Momjian <pgman@candle.pha.pa.us> writes:
> > My basic idea was to keep a status bit on each index entry telling it if
> > a previous backend looked at the heap and determined it was valid.
> 
> Even if you could track the tuple's committed-good status reliably,
> that isn't enough under MVCC.  The tuple might be committed good, and
> seen that way by some other backend that set the bit, and yet it's not
> supposed to be visible to your older transaction.  Or the reverse at
> tuple deletion.

I mentioned that:

> (Oh, and you could only update the bit when all active transactions
> are newer than the creation transaction so we know they should all see
> it as visible.)

--
  Bruce Momjian                        |  http://candle.pha.pa.us
  pgman@candle.pha.pa.us               |  (610) 359-1001
  +  If your life is a hard drive,     |  13 Roberts Road
  +  Christ can be your backup.        |  Newtown Square, Pennsylvania 19073

Re: Much Ado About COUNT(*)

Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> — 2005-01-13T05:06:38Z

Bruce Momjian <pgman@candle.pha.pa.us> writes:
> Tom Lane wrote:
>> Even if you could track the tuple's committed-good status reliably,
>> that isn't enough under MVCC.

> I mentioned that:

>> (Oh, and you could only update the bit when all active transactions
>> are newer than the creation transaction so we know they should all see
>> it as visible.)

Ah, right, I missed the connection.  Hmm ... that's sort of the inverse
of the "killed tuple" optimization we put in a release or two back,
where an index tuple is marked as definitely dead once it's committed
dead and the deletion is older than all active transactions.  Maybe that
would work.  You'd still have to visit the heap when a tuple is in the
"uncertain" states, but with luck that'd be only a small fraction of the
time.

I'm still concerned about the update costs of maintaining these bits,
but this would at least escape the index-bloat objection.  I think we
still have one free bit in index tuple headers...

			regards, tom lane

Re: Much Ado About COUNT(*)

Bruce Momjian <pgman@candle.pha.pa.us> — 2005-01-13T05:25:09Z

Tom Lane wrote:
> Bruce Momjian <pgman@candle.pha.pa.us> writes:
> > Tom Lane wrote:
> >> Even if you could track the tuple's committed-good status reliably,
> >> that isn't enough under MVCC.
> 
> > I mentioned that:
> 
> >> (Oh, and you could only update the bit when all active transactions
> >> are newer than the creation transaction so we know they should all see
> >> it as visible.)
> 
> Ah, right, I missed the connection.  Hmm ... that's sort of the inverse
> of the "killed tuple" optimization we put in a release or two back,
> where an index tuple is marked as definitely dead once it's committed
> dead and the deletion is older than all active transactions.  Maybe that
> would work.  You'd still have to visit the heap when a tuple is in the
> "uncertain" states, but with luck that'd be only a small fraction of the
> time.

Yes, it is sort of the reverse, but how do you get around the delete
case?  Even if the bit is set, how do you know it wasn't deleted since
you set the bit?  Seems you always have to still check the heap, no?

> I'm still concerned about the update costs of maintaining these bits,
> but this would at least escape the index-bloat objection.  I think we
> still have one free bit in index tuple headers...

You mean you are considering clearing the index bit when you delete the
row?

-- 
  Bruce Momjian                        |  http://candle.pha.pa.us
  pgman@candle.pha.pa.us               |  (610) 359-1001
  +  If your life is a hard drive,     |  13 Roberts Road
  +  Christ can be your backup.        |  Newtown Square, Pennsylvania 19073

Re: Much Ado About COUNT(*)

Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> — 2005-01-13T05:39:56Z

Bruce Momjian <pgman@candle.pha.pa.us> writes:
>> Ah, right, I missed the connection.  Hmm ... that's sort of the inverse
>> of the "killed tuple" optimization we put in a release or two back,
>> where an index tuple is marked as definitely dead once it's committed
>> dead and the deletion is older than all active transactions.

> Yes, it is sort of the reverse, but how do you get around the delete
> case?

A would-be deleter of a tuple would have to go and clear the "known
good" bits on all the tuple's index entries before it could commit.
This would bring the tuple back into the "uncertain status" condition
where backends would have to visit the heap to find out what's up.
Eventually the state would become certain again (either dead to
everyone or live to everyone) and one or the other hint bit could be
set again.

The ugly part of this is that clearing the bit is not like setting a
hint bit, ie it's not okay if we lose that change.  Therefore, each
bit-clearing would have to be WAL-logged.  This is a big part of my
concern about the cost.

			regards, tom lane

Re: Much Ado About COUNT(*)

Christopher Kings-Lynne <chriskl@familyhealth.com.au> — 2005-01-13T10:12:49Z

> The fundamental problem is that you can't do it without adding at least
> 16 bytes, probably 20, to the size of an index tuple header.  That would
> double the physical size of an index on a simple column (eg an integer
> or timestamp).  The extra I/O costs and extra maintenance costs are
> unattractive to say the least.  And it takes away some of the
> justification for the whole thing, which is that reading an index is
> much cheaper than reading the main table.  That's only true if the index
> is much smaller than the main table ...

Well, the trick would be to have it specified per-index, then it's up to 
the user whether it's faster or not...

Re: Much Ado About COUNT(*)

Bruce Momjian <pgman@candle.pha.pa.us> — 2005-01-13T14:04:46Z

Tom Lane wrote:
> Bruce Momjian <pgman@candle.pha.pa.us> writes:
> >> Ah, right, I missed the connection.  Hmm ... that's sort of the inverse
> >> of the "killed tuple" optimization we put in a release or two back,
> >> where an index tuple is marked as definitely dead once it's committed
> >> dead and the deletion is older than all active transactions.
> 
> > Yes, it is sort of the reverse, but how do you get around the delete
> > case?
> 
> A would-be deleter of a tuple would have to go and clear the "known
> good" bits on all the tuple's index entries before it could commit.
> This would bring the tuple back into the "uncertain status" condition
> where backends would have to visit the heap to find out what's up.
> Eventually the state would become certain again (either dead to
> everyone or live to everyone) and one or the other hint bit could be
> set again.

Right.  Do you think the extra overhead of clearing those bits on
update/delete would be worth it?

> The ugly part of this is that clearing the bit is not like setting a
> hint bit, ie it's not okay if we lose that change.  Therefore, each
> bit-clearing would have to be WAL-logged.  This is a big part of my
> concern about the cost.

Yep, that was my concern too.  My feeling is that once you mark the
tuple for expiration (update/delete), you then clear the index bit. 
When reading WAL on recovery, you have to clear index bits on rows as
you read expire information from WAL.  I don't think it would require
extra WAL information.

The net effect of this idea is that indexes have to look up heap row
status information only for rows that have been recently
created/expired.

If we did have those bits, it would allow us to read data directly from
the index, which is something we don't do now.

-- 
  Bruce Momjian                        |  http://candle.pha.pa.us
  pgman@candle.pha.pa.us               |  (610) 359-1001
  +  If your life is a hard drive,     |  13 Roberts Road
  +  Christ can be your backup.        |  Newtown Square, Pennsylvania 19073

Re: Much Ado About COUNT(*)

Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> — 2005-01-13T15:29:16Z

Bruce Momjian <pgman@candle.pha.pa.us> writes:
> Tom Lane wrote:
>> The ugly part of this is that clearing the bit is not like setting a
>> hint bit, ie it's not okay if we lose that change.  Therefore, each
>> bit-clearing would have to be WAL-logged.  This is a big part of my
>> concern about the cost.

> Yep, that was my concern too.  My feeling is that once you mark the
> tuple for expiration (update/delete), you then clear the index bit. 
> When reading WAL on recovery, you have to clear index bits on rows as
> you read expire information from WAL.  I don't think it would require
> extra WAL information.

Wrong.  The WAL recovery environment is not capable of executing
arbitrary user-defined functions, therefore it cannot compute index
entries on its own.  The *only* way we can do this is if the WAL record
stream tells exactly what to do and which physical tuple to do it to.

			regards, tom lane

Re: Much Ado About COUNT(*)

D'Arcy Cain <darcy@druid.net> — 2005-01-13T18:22:42Z

On Thu, 13 Jan 2005 10:29:16 -0500
Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
> Wrong.  The WAL recovery environment is not capable of executing
> arbitrary user-defined functions, therefore it cannot compute index
> entries on its own.  The *only* way we can do this is if the WAL
> record stream tells exactly what to do and which physical tuple to do
> it to.

I'm not sure why everyone wants to push this into the database anyway. 
If I need to know the count of something, I am probably in a better
position to decide what and how than the database can ever do.  For
example, I recently had to track balances for certificates in a database
with 25M certificates with multiple transactions on each.  In this case
it is a SUM() instead of a count but the idea is the same.  We switched
from the deprecated money type to numeric and the calculations started
taking too long for our purposes.  We created a new table to track
balances and created rules to keep it updated.  All the complexity and
extra work is limited to changes to that one table and does exactly what
we need it to do.  It even deals with transactions that get cancelled
but remain in the table.

If you need the count of entire tables, a simple rule on insert and
delete can manage that for you.  A slightly more complicated set of
rules can keep counts based on the value of some field, just like we did
for the certificate ID in the transactions.  Getting the database to
magically track this based on arbitrary business rules is guaranteed to
be complex and still not handle everyone's requirements.

-- 
D'Arcy J.M. Cain <darcy@druid.net>         |  Democracy is three wolves
http://www.druid.net/darcy/                |  and a sheep voting on
+1 416 425 1212     (DoD#0082)    (eNTP)   |  what's for dinner.

Re: Much Ado About COUNT(*)

Jonah H. Harris <jharris@tvi.edu> — 2005-01-13T19:20:36Z

D'Arcy J.M. Cain wrote:

>I'm not sure why everyone wants to push this into the database anyway. 
>If I need to know the count of something, I am probably in a better
>position to decide what and how than the database can ever do.  For
>example, I recently had to track balances for certificates in a database
>with 25M certificates with multiple transactions on each.  In this case
>it is a SUM() instead of a count but the idea is the same.  We switched
>from the deprecated money type to numeric and the calculations started
>taking too long for our purposes.  We created a new table to track
>balances and created rules to keep it updated.  All the complexity and
>extra work is limited to changes to that one table and does exactly what
>we need it to do.  It even deals with transactions that get cancelled
>but remain in the table.
>
>If you need the count of entire tables, a simple rule on insert and
>delete can manage that for you.  A slightly more complicated set of
>rules can keep counts based on the value of some field, just like we did
>for the certificate ID in the transactions.  Getting the database to
>magically track this based on arbitrary business rules is guaranteed to
>be complex and still not handle everyone's requirements.
>
>  
>
This discussion is not solely related to COUNT, but advanced usage of 
the indexes in general.

Did everyone get to read the info on Oracle's fast full index scan?  It 
performs sequential I/O on the indexes, pulling all of the index blocks 
into memory to reduce random I/O to speed up the index scan.

Re: Much Ado About COUNT(*)

Manfred Koizar <mkoi-pg@aon.at> — 2005-01-16T19:49:45Z

On Thu, 13 Jan 2005 00:39:56 -0500, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
wrote:
>A would-be deleter of a tuple would have to go and clear the "known
>good" bits on all the tuple's index entries before it could commit.
>This would bring the tuple back into the "uncertain status" condition
>where backends would have to visit the heap to find out what's up.
>Eventually the state would become certain again (either dead to
>everyone or live to everyone) and one or the other hint bit could be
>set again.

Last time we discussed this, didn't we come to the conclusion, that
resetting status bits is not a good idea because of possible race
conditions?

In a previous post you wrote:
| I think we still have one free bit in index tuple headers...

AFAICS we'd need two new bits: "visible to all" and "maybe dead".

Writing the three status bits in the order "visible to all", "maybe
dead", "known dead", a normal index tuple lifecycle would be

  000 -> 100 -> 110 -> 111

In states 000 and 110 the heap tuple has to be read to determine
visibility.

The transitions 000 -> 100 and 110 -> 111 happen as side effects of
index scans.  100 -> 110 has to be done by the deleting transaction.
This is the operation where the additional run time cost lies.

One weakness of this approach is that once the index tuple state is
110 but the deleting transaction is aborted there is no easy way to
reset the "maybe deleted" bit.  So we'd have to consult the heap for
the rest of the tuple's lifetime.

Servus
 Manfred

Re: Much Ado About COUNT(*)

Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> — 2005-01-16T20:11:37Z

Manfred Koizar <mkoi-pg@aon.at> writes:
> On Thu, 13 Jan 2005 00:39:56 -0500, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
> wrote:
>> A would-be deleter of a tuple would have to go and clear the "known
>> good" bits on all the tuple's index entries before it could commit.
>> This would bring the tuple back into the "uncertain status" condition
>> where backends would have to visit the heap to find out what's up.
>> Eventually the state would become certain again (either dead to
>> everyone or live to everyone) and one or the other hint bit could be
>> set again.

> Last time we discussed this, didn't we come to the conclusion, that
> resetting status bits is not a good idea because of possible race
> conditions?

There's no race condition, since resetting the hint only forces other
transactions to go back to the original data (the tuple header) to
decide what to do.  AFAICS the above is safe; I'm just pretty dubious
about the cost.

> AFAICS we'd need two new bits: "visible to all" and "maybe dead".

No, you've got this wrong.  The three possible states are "known visible
to all", "known dead to all", and "uncertain".  If you see "uncertain"
this means you have to go to the heap and compare the XIDs in the tuple
header to your snapshot to decide if you can see the row or not.  The
index states are not the same as the "known committed good" or
"known committed dead" hint bits in the tuple header --- those can be
set as soon as the inserting/deleting transaction's outcome is known,
but we can't move the index entry into the "visible to all" or "dead to
all" states until that outcome is beyond the GlobalXmin event horizon.

			regards, tom lane

Re: Much Ado About COUNT(*)

Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> — 2005-01-16T20:22:11Z

Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> writes:
> Manfred Koizar <mkoi-pg@aon.at> writes:
>> Last time we discussed this, didn't we come to the conclusion, that
>> resetting status bits is not a good idea because of possible race
>> conditions?

> There's no race condition,

Actually, wait a minute --- you have a point.  Consider a tuple whose
inserting transaction (A) has just dropped below GlobalXmin.
Transaction B is doing an index scan, so it's going to do something like

* Visit index entry, observe that it is in "uncertain" state.
* Visit heap tuple, observe that A has committed and is < GlobalXmin,
  and there is no deleter.
* Return to index entry and mark it "visible to all".

Now suppose transaction C decides to delete the tuple.  It will

* Insert itself as the XMAX of the heap tuple.
* Visit index entry, set state to "uncertain" if not already that way.

C could do this between steps 2 and 3 of B, in which case the index
entry ends up improperly marked "visible to all" while in fact a
deletion is pending.  Ugh.  We'd need some kind of interlock to prevent
this from happening, and it's not clear what.  Might be tricky to create
such an interlock without introducing either deadlock or a big
performance penalty.

			regards, tom lane

Re: Much Ado About COUNT(*)

Jochem van Dieten <jochemd@gmail.com> — 2005-01-16T20:38:31Z

On Sun, 16 Jan 2005 20:49:45 +0100, Manfred Koizar wrote:
> On Thu, 13 Jan 2005 00:39:56 -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
>> A would-be deleter of a tuple would have to go and clear the "known
>> good" bits on all the tuple's index entries before it could commit.
>> This would bring the tuple back into the "uncertain status" condition
>> where backends would have to visit the heap to find out what's up.
>> Eventually the state would become certain again (either dead to
>> everyone or live to everyone) and one or the other hint bit could be
>> set again.
> 
> Last time we discussed this, didn't we come to the conclusion, that
> resetting status bits is not a good idea because of possible race
> conditions?

http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-performance/2004-05/msg00004.php


> In a previous post you wrote:
> | I think we still have one free bit in index tuple headers...
> 
> AFAICS we'd need two new bits: "visible to all" and "maybe dead".
> 
> Writing the three status bits in the order "visible to all", "maybe
> dead", "known dead", a normal index tuple lifecycle would be
> 
>   000 -> 100 -> 110 -> 111
> 
> In states 000 and 110 the heap tuple has to be read to determine
> visibility.
> 
> The transitions 000 -> 100 and 110 -> 111 happen as side effects of
> index scans.  100 -> 110 has to be done by the deleting transaction.
> This is the operation where the additional run time cost lies.
> 
> One weakness of this approach is that once the index tuple state is
> 110 but the deleting transaction is aborted there is no easy way to
> reset the "maybe deleted" bit.  So we'd have to consult the heap for
> the rest of the tuple's lifetime.

How bad is that really with a typical workload?

Jochem

Re: Much Ado About COUNT(*)

decibel <decibel@decibel.org> — 2005-01-17T00:53:01Z

On Sun, Jan 16, 2005 at 03:22:11PM -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
> Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> writes:
> > Manfred Koizar <mkoi-pg@aon.at> writes:
> >> Last time we discussed this, didn't we come to the conclusion, that
> >> resetting status bits is not a good idea because of possible race
> >> conditions?
> 
> > There's no race condition,
> 
> Actually, wait a minute --- you have a point.  Consider a tuple whose
> inserting transaction (A) has just dropped below GlobalXmin.
> Transaction B is doing an index scan, so it's going to do something like
> 
> * Visit index entry, observe that it is in "uncertain" state.
> * Visit heap tuple, observe that A has committed and is < GlobalXmin,
>   and there is no deleter.
> * Return to index entry and mark it "visible to all".
> 
> Now suppose transaction C decides to delete the tuple.  It will
> 
> * Insert itself as the XMAX of the heap tuple.
> * Visit index entry, set state to "uncertain" if not already that way.
> 
> C could do this between steps 2 and 3 of B, in which case the index
> entry ends up improperly marked "visible to all" while in fact a
> deletion is pending.  Ugh.  We'd need some kind of interlock to prevent
> this from happening, and it's not clear what.  Might be tricky to create
> such an interlock without introducing either deadlock or a big
> performance penalty.
 
Wouldn't the original proposal that had a state machine handle this?
IIRC the original idea was:

new tuple -> known good -> possibly dead -> known dead

In this case, you would have to visit the heap page when an entry is in
the 'new tuple' or 'possibly dead' states. When it comes to transitions,
you would enforce the transitions as shown, which would eliminate the
race condition you thought of.

Err, I guess maybe you have to allow going from possibly dead back to
known good? But I think that would be the only 'backwards' transition.
In the event of a rollback on an insert I think you'd want to go
directly from new tuple to known dead, as well.
-- 
Jim C. Nasby, Database Consultant               decibel@decibel.org 
Give your computer some brain candy! www.distributed.net Team #1828

Windows: "Where do you want to go today?"
Linux: "Where do you want to go tomorrow?"
FreeBSD: "Are you guys coming, or what?"

Re: Much Ado About COUNT(*)

Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> — 2005-01-17T01:01:36Z

"Jim C. Nasby" <decibel@decibel.org> writes:
> Wouldn't the original proposal that had a state machine handle this?
> IIRC the original idea was:

> new tuple -> known good -> possibly dead -> known dead

Only if you disallow the transition from possibly dead back to known
good, which strikes me as a rather large disadvantage.  Failed UPDATEs
aren't so uncommon that it's okay to have one permanently disable the
optimization.

			regards, tom lane

Re: Much Ado About COUNT(*)

Jochem van Dieten <jochemd@gmail.com> — 2005-01-17T01:24:57Z

On Sun, 16 Jan 2005 20:01:36 -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
> "Jim C. Nasby" writes:
>> Wouldn't the original proposal that had a state machine handle this?
>> IIRC the original idea was:
>> 
>> new tuple -> known good -> possibly dead -> known dead
> 
> Only if you disallow the transition from possibly dead back to known
> good, which strikes me as a rather large disadvantage.  Failed UPDATEs
> aren't so uncommon that it's okay to have one permanently disable the
> optimization.

But how about allowing the transition from "possibly dead" to "new
tuple"? What if a failed update restores the tuple to the "new tuple"
state, and only after that it can be promoted to "known good" state?

Jochem

Re: Much Ado About COUNT(*)

decibel <decibel@decibel.org> — 2005-01-17T01:28:07Z

On Sun, Jan 16, 2005 at 08:01:36PM -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
> "Jim C. Nasby" <decibel@decibel.org> writes:
> > Wouldn't the original proposal that had a state machine handle this?
> > IIRC the original idea was:
> 
> > new tuple -> known good -> possibly dead -> known dead
> 
> Only if you disallow the transition from possibly dead back to known
> good, which strikes me as a rather large disadvantage.  Failed UPDATEs
> aren't so uncommon that it's okay to have one permanently disable the
> optimization.

Actually, I guess I wasn't understanding the problem to begin with.
You'd never go from new tuple to known good while the transaction that
created the tuple was in-flight, right? If that's the case, I'm not sure
where there's a race condition. You can't delete a tuple that hasn't
been committed, right?
-- 
Jim C. Nasby, Database Consultant               decibel@decibel.org 
Give your computer some brain candy! www.distributed.net Team #1828

Windows: "Where do you want to go today?"
Linux: "Where do you want to go tomorrow?"
FreeBSD: "Are you guys coming, or what?"

Re: Much Ado About COUNT(*)

decibel <decibel@decibel.org> — 2005-01-17T01:32:02Z

On Sun, Jan 16, 2005 at 07:28:07PM -0600, Jim C. Nasby wrote:
> On Sun, Jan 16, 2005 at 08:01:36PM -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
> > "Jim C. Nasby" <decibel@decibel.org> writes:
> > > Wouldn't the original proposal that had a state machine handle this?
> > > IIRC the original idea was:
> > 
> > > new tuple -> known good -> possibly dead -> known dead
> > 
> > Only if you disallow the transition from possibly dead back to known
> > good, which strikes me as a rather large disadvantage.  Failed UPDATEs
> > aren't so uncommon that it's okay to have one permanently disable the
> > optimization.
> 
> Actually, I guess I wasn't understanding the problem to begin with.
> You'd never go from new tuple to known good while the transaction that
> created the tuple was in-flight, right? If that's the case, I'm not sure
> where there's a race condition. You can't delete a tuple that hasn't
> been committed, right?

Er, nevermind, I thought about it and realized the issue.

What changes when a delete is done on a tuple? It seems that's the
key... if a tuple has been marked as possibly being expired/deleted,
don't allow it to go into known_good unless you can verify that the
transaction that marked it as potentially deleted was rolled back.
-- 
Jim C. Nasby, Database Consultant               decibel@decibel.org 
Give your computer some brain candy! www.distributed.net Team #1828

Windows: "Where do you want to go today?"
Linux: "Where do you want to go tomorrow?"
FreeBSD: "Are you guys coming, or what?"

Re: Much Ado About COUNT(*)

Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> — 2005-01-17T01:34:58Z

"Jim C. Nasby" <decibel@decibel.org> writes:
> Actually, I guess I wasn't understanding the problem to begin with.
> You'd never go from new tuple to known good while the transaction that
> created the tuple was in-flight, right?

By definition, not.

> If that's the case, I'm not sure
> where there's a race condition. You can't delete a tuple that hasn't
> been committed, right?

The originating transaction could itself delete the tuple, but no one
else could see it yet to do that.  This means that you'd have to allow
a transition directly from new tuple to possibly dead.  (In the absence
of subtransactions this could be optimized into a transition directly
to known dead, but now that we have subtransactions I don't think we
can do that.)

However, the race condition comes in when someone wants to delete the
row at about the same time as someone else is trying to mark it known
good, ie, sometime *after* the originating transaction committed.
This is definitely a possible situation.

			regards, tom lane

Re: Much Ado About COUNT(*)

Sailesh Krishnamurthy <sailesh@cs.berkeley.edu> — 2005-01-18T20:45:50Z

>>>>> "Jonah" == Jonah H Harris <jharris@tvi.edu> writes:

    Jonah> Replying to the list as a whole:

    Jonah> If this is such a bad idea, why do other database systems
    Jonah> use it?  As a businessperson myself, it doesn't seem
    Jonah> logical to me that commercial database companies would
    Jonah> spend money on implementing this feature if it wouldn't be
    Jonah> used.  Remember guys, I'm just trying to help.

Systems like DB2 don't implement versioning schemes. As a result there
is no need to worry about maintaining visibility in
indexes. Index-only plans are thus viable as they require no change in
the physical structure of the index and no overhead on
update/delete/insert ops. 

I don't know about Oracle, which I gather is the only commercial
system to have something like MVCC.

-- 
Pip-pip
Sailesh
http://www.cs.berkeley.edu/~sailesh

Re: Much Ado About COUNT(*)

Jeff Davis <jdavis-pgsql@empires.org> — 2005-01-18T22:10:48Z

On Tue, 2005-01-18 at 12:45 -0800, Sailesh Krishnamurthy wrote:
> >>>>> "Jonah" == Jonah H Harris <jharris@tvi.edu> writes:
> 
>     Jonah> Replying to the list as a whole:
> 
>     Jonah> If this is such a bad idea, why do other database systems
>     Jonah> use it?  As a businessperson myself, it doesn't seem
>     Jonah> logical to me that commercial database companies would
>     Jonah> spend money on implementing this feature if it wouldn't be
>     Jonah> used.  Remember guys, I'm just trying to help.
> 
> Systems like DB2 don't implement versioning schemes. As a result there
> is no need to worry about maintaining visibility in
> indexes. Index-only plans are thus viable as they require no change in
> the physical structure of the index and no overhead on
> update/delete/insert ops. 
> 
> I don't know about Oracle, which I gather is the only commercial
> system to have something like MVCC.
> 

Perhaps firebird/interbase also? Someone mentioned that on these lists,
I'm not sure if it's true or not.

I almost think to not supply an MVCC system would break the "I" in ACID,
would it not? I can't think of any other obvious way to isolate the
transactions, but on the other hand, wouldn't DB2 want to be ACID
compliant?

Regards,
	Jeff Davis

Re: Much Ado About COUNT(*)

Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> — 2005-01-18T22:29:16Z

Jeff Davis <jdavis-pgsql@empires.org> writes:
> I almost think to not supply an MVCC system would break the "I" in ACID,
> would it not?

Certainly not; ACID was a recognized goal long before anyone thought of
MVCC.  You do need much more locking to make it work without MVCC,
though --- for instance, a reader that is interested in a just-modified
row has to block until the writer completes or rolls back.

People who hang around Postgres too long tend to think that MVCC is the
obviously correct way to do things, but much of the rest of the world
thinks differently ;-)

			regards, tom lane

Re: Much Ado About COUNT(*)

Sailesh Krishnamurthy <sailesh@cs.berkeley.edu> — 2005-01-18T22:42:32Z

>>>>> "Tom" == Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> writes:

    Tom> People who hang around Postgres too long tend to think that
    Tom> MVCC is the obviously correct way to do things, but much of
    Tom> the rest of the world thinks differently ;-)

It works the other way too ... people who come from the locking world
find it difficult to wrap their heads around MVCC. A big part of this
is because Gray's original paper on transaction isolation defines the
different levels based on what kind of lock acquisitions they involve. 

A very nice alternative approach to defining transaction isolation is
"Generalized isolation level definitions" by Adya, Liskov and O'Neill
that appears in ICDE 2000. 

-- 
Pip-pip
Sailesh
http://www.cs.berkeley.edu/~sailesh

Re: Much Ado About COUNT(*)

Jeff Davis <jdavis-pgsql@empires.org> — 2005-01-18T23:01:01Z

> Certainly not; ACID was a recognized goal long before anyone thought of
> MVCC.  You do need much more locking to make it work without MVCC,
> though --- for instance, a reader that is interested in a just-modified
> row has to block until the writer completes or rolls back.
> 
> People who hang around Postgres too long tend to think that MVCC is the
> obviously correct way to do things, but much of the rest of the world
> thinks differently ;-)

Well, that would explain why everyone is so happy with PostgreSQL's
concurrent access performance.

Thanks for the information, although I'm not sure I wanted to be
reminded about complicated locking issues ( I suppose I must have known
that at one time, but perhaps I surpressed it ;-)

Regards,
	Jeff Davis

Re: Much Ado About COUNT(*)

Chris Browne <cbbrowne@acm.org> — 2005-01-19T05:09:53Z

Martha Stewart called it a Good Thing when jdavis-pgsql@empires.org (Jeff Davis) wrote:
> I almost think to not supply an MVCC system would break the "I" in ACID,
> would it not? I can't think of any other obvious way to isolate the
> transactions, but on the other hand, wouldn't DB2 want to be ACID
> compliant?

Wrong, wrong, wrong...

MVCC allows an ACID implementation to not need to do a lot of resource
locking.

In the absence of MVCC, you have way more locks outstanding, which
makes it easier for there to be conflicts between lock requests.

In effect, with MVCC, you can do more things concurrently without the
system crumbling due to a surfeit of deadlocks.
-- 
"cbbrowne","@","gmail.com"
http://www3.sympatico.ca/cbbrowne/multiplexor.html
Why isn't phonetic spelled the way it sounds?

Re: Much Ado About COUNT(*)

Bruce Momjian <pgman@candle.pha.pa.us> — 2005-01-22T20:06:33Z

Added to TODO based on this discusion:

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

* Speed up COUNT(*)

  We could use a fixed row count and a +/- count to follow MVCC
  visibility rules, or a single cached value could be used and
  invalidated if anyone modifies the table.  Another idea is to  <--
  get a count directly from a unique index, but for this to be
  faster than a sequential scan it must avoid access to the heap
  to obtain tuple visibility information.

* Allow data to be pulled directly from indexes

  Currently indexes do not have enough tuple tuple visibility
  information to allow data to be pulled from the index without
  also accessing the heap.  One way to allow this is to set a bit
  to index tuples to indicate if a tuple is currently visible to
  all transactions when the first valid heap lookup happens.  This
  bit would have to be cleared when a heap tuple is expired.



---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Tom Lane wrote:
> Bruce Momjian <pgman@candle.pha.pa.us> writes:
> >> Ah, right, I missed the connection.  Hmm ... that's sort of the inverse
> >> of the "killed tuple" optimization we put in a release or two back,
> >> where an index tuple is marked as definitely dead once it's committed
> >> dead and the deletion is older than all active transactions.
> 
> > Yes, it is sort of the reverse, but how do you get around the delete
> > case?
> 
> A would-be deleter of a tuple would have to go and clear the "known
> good" bits on all the tuple's index entries before it could commit.
> This would bring the tuple back into the "uncertain status" condition
> where backends would have to visit the heap to find out what's up.
> Eventually the state would become certain again (either dead to
> everyone or live to everyone) and one or the other hint bit could be
> set again.
> 
> The ugly part of this is that clearing the bit is not like setting a
> hint bit, ie it's not okay if we lose that change.  Therefore, each
> bit-clearing would have to be WAL-logged.  This is a big part of my
> concern about the cost.
> 
> 			regards, tom lane
> 
> ---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
> TIP 9: the planner will ignore your desire to choose an index scan if your
>       joining column's datatypes do not match
> 

-- 
  Bruce Momjian                        |  http://candle.pha.pa.us
  pgman@candle.pha.pa.us               |  (610) 359-1001
  +  If your life is a hard drive,     |  13 Roberts Road
  +  Christ can be your backup.        |  Newtown Square, Pennsylvania 19073

Re: Much Ado About COUNT(*)

Bruce Momjian <pgman@candle.pha.pa.us> — 2005-01-22T21:19:16Z

Tom Lane wrote:
> Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> writes:
> > Manfred Koizar <mkoi-pg@aon.at> writes:
> >> Last time we discussed this, didn't we come to the conclusion, that
> >> resetting status bits is not a good idea because of possible race
> >> conditions?
> 
> > There's no race condition,
> 
> Actually, wait a minute --- you have a point.  Consider a tuple whose
> inserting transaction (A) has just dropped below GlobalXmin.
> Transaction B is doing an index scan, so it's going to do something like
> 
> * Visit index entry, observe that it is in "uncertain" state.
> * Visit heap tuple, observe that A has committed and is < GlobalXmin,
>   and there is no deleter.
> * Return to index entry and mark it "visible to all".
> 
> Now suppose transaction C decides to delete the tuple.  It will
> 
> * Insert itself as the XMAX of the heap tuple.
> * Visit index entry, set state to "uncertain" if not already that way.
> 
> C could do this between steps 2 and 3 of B, in which case the index
> entry ends up improperly marked "visible to all" while in fact a
> deletion is pending.  Ugh.  We'd need some kind of interlock to prevent
> this from happening, and it's not clear what.  Might be tricky to create
> such an interlock without introducing either deadlock or a big
> performance penalty.

I am thinking we have to somehow lock the row while we set the index
status bit.  We could add a new heap bit that says "my xid is going to
set the status bit" and put our xid in the expired location, set the
bit, then return to the heap and clear it.

Can we keep the heap and index page locked at the same time?

Anyway it is clearly something that could be an issue.

-- 
  Bruce Momjian                        |  http://candle.pha.pa.us
  pgman@candle.pha.pa.us               |  (610) 359-1001
  +  If your life is a hard drive,     |  13 Roberts Road
  +  Christ can be your backup.        |  Newtown Square, Pennsylvania 19073

Re: Much Ado About COUNT(*)

Ron Mayer <rm_pg@cheapcomplexdevices.com> — 2005-01-23T08:36:10Z

Bruce Momjian wrote:
> Added to TODO based on this discusion:... 
> * Speed up COUNT(*)

One think I think would help lots of people is if the
documentation near the COUNT aggregate explained some
of the techniques using triggers to maintain a count
for tables where this is important.

For every one person who reads the mailinglist archives,
I bet there are dozens who merely read the product
documentation and never find the workaround/solution.

Perhaps a note below the table here:
http://www.postgresql.org/docs/8.0/interactive/functions-aggregate.html#FUNCTIONS-AGGREGATE-TABLE
would be a good place.   If it is already somewhere in
the docs; perhaps the page I linked should refer to the
other page as well.

Re: Much Ado About COUNT(*)

decibel <decibel@decibel.org> — 2005-01-23T21:36:18Z

On Sun, Jan 23, 2005 at 12:36:10AM -0800, Ron Mayer wrote:
> Bruce Momjian wrote:
> >Added to TODO based on this discusion:... 
> >* Speed up COUNT(*)
> 
> One think I think would help lots of people is if the
> documentation near the COUNT aggregate explained some
> of the techniques using triggers to maintain a count
> for tables where this is important.
> 
> For every one person who reads the mailinglist archives,
> I bet there are dozens who merely read the product
> documentation and never find the workaround/solution.
> 
> Perhaps a note below the table here:
> http://www.postgresql.org/docs/8.0/interactive/functions-aggregate.html#FUNCTIONS-AGGREGATE-TABLE
> would be a good place.   If it is already somewhere in
> the docs; perhaps the page I linked should refer to the
> other page as well.

Does anyone have working code they could contribute? It would be best to
give at least an example in the docs. Even better would be something in
pgfoundry that helps build a summary table and the rules/triggers you
need to maintain it.
-- 
Jim C. Nasby, Database Consultant               decibel@decibel.org 
Give your computer some brain candy! www.distributed.net Team #1828

Windows: "Where do you want to go today?"
Linux: "Where do you want to go tomorrow?"
FreeBSD: "Are you guys coming, or what?"

Re: Much Ado About COUNT(*)

Mark Kirkwood <markir@coretech.co.nz> — 2005-01-23T23:41:55Z

Jim C. Nasby wrote:

> Does anyone have working code they could contribute? It would be best to
> give at least an example in the docs. Even better would be something in
> pgfoundry that helps build a summary table and the rules/triggers you
> need to maintain it.

http://developer.postgresql.org/docs/postgres/plpgsql-trigger.html#PLPGSQL-TRIGGER-SUMMARY-EXAMPLE

regards

Mark

Re: Much Ado About COUNT(*)

Jonah H. Harris <jharris@tvi.edu> — 2005-01-24T15:28:09Z

Here's a possible solution... though I'm not sure about whether you find 
the pg_ prefix appropriate for this context.

-- Create a Test Relation
CREATE TABLE test_tbl (
    test_id         BIGINT NOT NULL,
    test_value      VARCHAR(128) NOT NULL,
    PRIMARY KEY (test_id));

-- Create COUNT Collector Relation
CREATE TABLE pg_user_table_counts (
    schemaname       VARCHAR(64) NOT NULL,
    tablename        VARCHAR(64) NOT NULL,
    rowcount         BIGINT NOT NULL DEFAULT 0,
    PRIMARY KEY (schemaname, tablename));

-- Populate Collector Relation
INSERT INTO pg_user_table_counts (schemaname, tablename)
    (SELECT
        schemaname,
        tablename       
     FROM
        pg_tables
     WHERE
        schemaname != 'pg_catalog'
        AND schemaname != 'information_schema'
        AND tablename != 'pg_user_table_counts'
    )
;

-- Create our Increment/Decrement Function
CREATE OR REPLACE FUNCTION pg_user_table_count_func () RETURNS TRIGGER 
AS $pg_user_table_count_func$
    DECLARE
        this_schemaname          VARCHAR(64);       
    BEGIN

        SELECT INTO this_schemaname
            nspname
        FROM
            pg_namespace
        WHERE
            oid = (SELECT
                        relnamespace
                    FROM
                        pg_class
                    WHERE
                        oid = TG_RELID);

        -- Decrement Count
        IF (TG_OP = 'DELETE') THEN

            UPDATE pg_user_table_counts
                SET rowcount = rowcount - 1
                WHERE schemaname = this_schemaname
                    AND tablename = TG_RELNAME;

        ELSIF (TG_OP = 'INSERT') THEN

            UPDATE pg_user_table_counts
                SET rowcount = rowcount + 1
                WHERE schemaname = this_schemaname
                    AND tablename = TG_RELNAME;

        END IF;
        RETURN NULL;
    END;
$pg_user_table_count_func$ LANGUAGE plpgsql;

-- Create AFTER INSERT/UPDATE Trigger on our Test Table
CREATE TRIGGER test_tbl_aidt
AFTER INSERT OR DELETE ON test_tbl
    FOR EACH ROW EXECUTE PROCEDURE pg_user_table_count_func();

-- INSERT to Test Relation
INSERT INTO test_tbl VALUES (1, 'Demo INSERT');

-- Query Collector
demodb=# SELECT * FROM pg_user_table_counts;
 schemaname |    tablename    | rowcount
------------+-----------------+----------
 public     | test_tbl        |        1
(1 row)

-- DELETE from Test Relation
DELETE FROM test_tbl;

-- Query Collector
emodb=# SELECT * FROM pg_user_table_counts;
 schemaname |    tablename    | rowcount
------------+-----------------+----------
 public     | test_tbl        |        0
(1 row)




Mark Kirkwood wrote:

> Jim C. Nasby wrote:
>
>> Does anyone have working code they could contribute? It would be best to
>> give at least an example in the docs. Even better would be something in
>> pgfoundry that helps build a summary table and the rules/triggers you
>> need to maintain it.
>
>
> http://developer.postgresql.org/docs/postgres/plpgsql-trigger.html#PLPGSQL-TRIGGER-SUMMARY-EXAMPLE 
>
>
> regards
>
> Mark
>
> ---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
> TIP 9: the planner will ignore your desire to choose an index scan if 
> your
>      joining column's datatypes do not match

Re: Much Ado About COUNT(*)

Manfred Koizar <mkoi-pg@aon.at> — 2005-01-25T07:33:57Z

On Mon, 24 Jan 2005 08:28:09 -0700, "Jonah H. Harris" <jharris@tvi.edu>
wrote:
>            UPDATE pg_user_table_counts
>                SET rowcount = rowcount + 1
>                WHERE schemaname = this_schemaname
>                    AND tablename = TG_RELNAME;

This might work for small single user applications.  You'll have to keep
an eye on dead tuples in pg_user_table_counts though.

But as soon as there are several concurrent transactions doing both
INSERTs and DELETEs, your solution will in the best case serialise
access to test_tbl or it will break down because of deadlocks.

Servus
 Manfred

Re: Much Ado About COUNT(*)

Chris Browne <cbbrowne@acm.org> — 2005-01-25T12:03:28Z

Centuries ago, Nostradamus foresaw when mkoi-pg@aon.at (Manfred Koizar) would write:
> On Mon, 24 Jan 2005 08:28:09 -0700, "Jonah H. Harris" <jharris@tvi.edu>
> wrote:
>>            UPDATE pg_user_table_counts
>>                SET rowcount = rowcount + 1
>>                WHERE schemaname = this_schemaname
>>                    AND tablename = TG_RELNAME;
>
> This might work for small single user applications.  You'll have to keep
> an eye on dead tuples in pg_user_table_counts though.
>
> But as soon as there are several concurrent transactions doing both
> INSERTs and DELETEs, your solution will in the best case serialise
> access to test_tbl or it will break down because of deadlocks.

At that point, what you need to do is to break the process in three:

 1.  Instead of the above, use...

     insert into pg_user_table_counts (rowcount, schemaname,
       tablename) values (1, this_schemaname, TG_RELNAME);

     The process for DELETEs involves using the value -1, of course...

 2.  A process needs to run once in a while that does...

     create temp table new_counts as
        select sum(rowcount), schemaname, tablename from
            pg_user_table_counts group by schemaname, tablename;
     delete from pg_user_table_counts;
     insert into pg_user_table_counts select * from new_counts;

     This process "compresses" the table so that it becomes cheaper to
     do the aggregate in 3.

 3.  Querying values is done differently...

     select sum(rowcount) from pg_user_table_counts where schemaname =
      'this' and tablename = 'that';
-- 
let name="cbbrowne" and tld="ntlug.org" in String.concat "@" [name;tld];;
http://www.ntlug.org/~cbbrowne/nonrdbms.html
Rules of the  Evil Overlord #118. "If I  have equipment which performs
an  important function,  it  will not  be  activated by  a lever  that
someone  could  trigger  by   accidentally  falling  on  when  fatally
wounded." <http://www.eviloverlord.com/>