Horton

Thread

Commits

  1. Enable parallelism in REFRESH MATERIALIZED VIEW.

  2. Allow DML commands that create tables to use parallel query.

  1. Consider Parallelism While Planning For REFRESH MATERIALIZED VIEW

    Bharath Rupireddy <bharath.rupireddyforpostgres@gmail.com> — 2020-12-01T12:04:04Z

    Hi,

I think we can pass CURSOR_OPT_PARALLEL_OK to pg_plan_query() for
refresh mat view so that parallelism can be considered for the SELECT
part of the previously created mat view. The refresh mat view queries
can be faster in cases where SELECT is parallelized.

Attaching a small patch. Thoughts?

With Regards,
Bharath Rupireddy.
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com

  2. Re: Consider Parallelism While Planning For REFRESH MATERIALIZED VIEW

    Bharath Rupireddy <bharath.rupireddyforpostgres@gmail.com> — 2020-12-03T12:42:56Z

    On Tue, Dec 1, 2020 at 5:34 PM Bharath Rupireddy
<bharath.rupireddyforpostgres@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> I think we can pass CURSOR_OPT_PARALLEL_OK to pg_plan_query() for
> refresh mat view so that parallelism can be considered for the SELECT
> part of the previously created mat view. The refresh mat view queries
> can be faster in cases where SELECT is parallelized.
>
> Attaching a small patch. Thoughts?
>

Added this to commitfest, in case it is useful -
https://commitfest.postgresql.org/31/2856/

With Regards,
Bharath Rupireddy.
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com

  3. RE: Consider Parallelism While Planning For REFRESH MATERIALIZED VIEW

    Hou, Zhijie <houzj.fnst@cn.fujitsu.com> — 2020-12-22T11:23:48Z

    Hi

> Added this to commitfest, in case it is useful -
> https://commitfest.postgresql.org/31/2856/

I have an issue about the safety of enable parallel select.

I checked the [parallel insert into select] patch.
https://commitfest.postgresql.org/31/2844/
It seems parallel select is not allowed when target table is temporary table.

+	/*
+	 * We can't support table modification in parallel-mode if it's a foreign
+	 * table/partition (no FDW API for supporting parallel access) or a
+	 * temporary table.
+	 */
+	if (rel->rd_rel->relkind == RELKIND_FOREIGN_TABLE ||
+		RelationUsesLocalBuffers(rel))
+	{
+		table_close(rel, lockmode);
+		context->max_hazard = PROPARALLEL_UNSAFE;
+		return context->max_hazard;
+	}

For Refresh MatView.
if CONCURRENTLY is specified, It will builds new data in temp tablespace:
	if (concurrent)
	{
		tableSpace = GetDefaultTablespace(RELPERSISTENCE_TEMP, false);
		relpersistence = RELPERSISTENCE_TEMP;
	}

For the above case, should we still consider parallelism ?

Best regards,
houzj

  4. Re: Consider Parallelism While Planning For REFRESH MATERIALIZED VIEW

    Bharath Rupireddy <bharath.rupireddyforpostgres@gmail.com> — 2020-12-22T12:49:28Z

    On Tue, Dec 22, 2020 at 4:53 PM Hou, Zhijie <houzj.fnst@cn.fujitsu.com> wrote:
> I have an issue about the safety of enable parallel select.
>
> I checked the [parallel insert into select] patch.
> https://commitfest.postgresql.org/31/2844/
> It seems parallel select is not allowed when target table is temporary table.
>
> +       /*
> +        * We can't support table modification in parallel-mode if it's a foreign
> +        * table/partition (no FDW API for supporting parallel access) or a
> +        * temporary table.
> +        */
> +       if (rel->rd_rel->relkind == RELKIND_FOREIGN_TABLE ||
> +               RelationUsesLocalBuffers(rel))
> +       {
> +               table_close(rel, lockmode);
> +               context->max_hazard = PROPARALLEL_UNSAFE;
> +               return context->max_hazard;
> +       }
>
> For Refresh MatView.
> if CONCURRENTLY is specified, It will builds new data in temp tablespace:
>         if (concurrent)
>         {
>                 tableSpace = GetDefaultTablespace(RELPERSISTENCE_TEMP, false);
>                 relpersistence = RELPERSISTENCE_TEMP;
>         }
>
> For the above case, should we still consider parallelism ?

Thanks for taking a look at the patch.

The intention of the patch is to just enable the parallel mode while
planning the select part of the materialized view, but the insertions
do happen in the leader backend itself. That way even if there's
temporary tablespace gets created, we have no problem.

This patch can be thought as a precursor to parallelizing inserts in
refresh matview. I'm thinking to follow the design of parallel inserts
in ctas [1] i.e. pushing the dest receiver down to the workers once
that gets reviewed and finalized. At that time, we should take care of
not pushing inserts down to workers if temporary tablespace gets
created.

In summary, as far as this patch is considered we don't have any
problem with temporary tablespace getting created with CONCURRENTLY
option.

I'm planning to add a few test cases to cover this patch in
matview.sql and post a v2 patch soon.

[1] -  https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/CALj2ACWbQ95gS0z1viQC3qFVnMGAz7dcLjno9GdZv%2Bu9RAU9eQ%40mail.gmail.com

With Regards,
Bharath Rupireddy.
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com

  5. RE: Consider Parallelism While Planning For REFRESH MATERIALIZED VIEW

    Hou, Zhijie <houzj.fnst@cn.fujitsu.com> — 2020-12-23T03:44:30Z

    > Thanks for taking a look at the patch.
> 
> The intention of the patch is to just enable the parallel mode while planning
> the select part of the materialized view, but the insertions do happen in
> the leader backend itself. That way even if there's temporary tablespace
> gets created, we have no problem.
> 
> This patch can be thought as a precursor to parallelizing inserts in refresh
> matview. I'm thinking to follow the design of parallel inserts in ctas [1]
> i.e. pushing the dest receiver down to the workers once that gets reviewed
> and finalized. At that time, we should take care of not pushing inserts
> down to workers if temporary tablespace gets created.
> 
> In summary, as far as this patch is considered we don't have any problem
> with temporary tablespace getting created with CONCURRENTLY option.
> 
> I'm planning to add a few test cases to cover this patch in matview.sql
> and post a v2 patch soon.

Thanks for your explanation!
You are right that temporary tablespace does not affect current patch.

For the testcase:
I noticed that you have post a mail about add explain support for REFRESH MATERIALIZED VIEW.
Do you think we can combine these two features in one thread ?

Personally, The testcase with explain info will be better.

Best regards,
houzj

  6. Re: Consider Parallelism While Planning For REFRESH MATERIALIZED VIEW

    Bharath Rupireddy <bharath.rupireddyforpostgres@gmail.com> — 2020-12-24T08:39:08Z

    On Wed, Dec 23, 2020 at 9:14 AM Hou, Zhijie <houzj.fnst@cn.fujitsu.com> wrote:
> > Thanks for taking a look at the patch.
> >
> > The intention of the patch is to just enable the parallel mode while planning
> > the select part of the materialized view, but the insertions do happen in
> > the leader backend itself. That way even if there's temporary tablespace
> > gets created, we have no problem.
> >
> > This patch can be thought as a precursor to parallelizing inserts in refresh
> > matview. I'm thinking to follow the design of parallel inserts in ctas [1]
> > i.e. pushing the dest receiver down to the workers once that gets reviewed
> > and finalized. At that time, we should take care of not pushing inserts
> > down to workers if temporary tablespace gets created.
> >
> > In summary, as far as this patch is considered we don't have any problem
> > with temporary tablespace getting created with CONCURRENTLY option.
> >
> > I'm planning to add a few test cases to cover this patch in matview.sql
> > and post a v2 patch soon.
>
> Thanks for your explanation!
> You are right that temporary tablespace does not affect current patch.
>
> For the testcase:
> I noticed that you have post a mail about add explain support for REFRESH MATERIALIZED VIEW.
> Do you think we can combine these two features in one thread ?

Yeah, it is at [1] and on some initial analysis ISTM that
explain/explain analyze RMV requires a good amount of code
rearrangement in ExecRefreshMatView(). IMO these two features can be
kept separate because they serve different purposes.

[1] - https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/flat/CALj2ACU71s91G1EOzo-Xx7Z4mvF0dKq-mYeP5u4nikJWxPNRSA%40mail.gmail.com

> Personally, The testcase with explain info will be better.

Yeah without explain analyze we can not show whether the parallelism
is picked in the test cases. What we could do is that we can add a
plain RMV test case in write_parallel.sql after CMV so that at least
we can be ensured that the parallelism will be picked because of the
enforcement there. We can always see the parallelism for the select
part of explain analyze CMV in write_parallel.sql and the same select
query gets planned even in RMV cases.

IMO, the patch in this thread can go with test case addition to
write_parallel.sql. since it is very small.

Thoughts?

With Regards,
Bharath Rupireddy.
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com

  7. RE: Consider Parallelism While Planning For REFRESH MATERIALIZED VIEW

    Hou, Zhijie <houzj.fnst@cn.fujitsu.com> — 2020-12-30T02:33:43Z

    > Yeah without explain analyze we can not show whether the parallelism is
> picked in the test cases. What we could do is that we can add a plain RMV
> test case in write_parallel.sql after CMV so that at least we can be ensured
> that the parallelism will be picked because of the enforcement there. We
> can always see the parallelism for the select part of explain analyze CMV
> in write_parallel.sql and the same select query gets planned even in RMV
> cases.
> 
> IMO, the patch in this thread can go with test case addition to
> write_parallel.sql. since it is very small.
> 
> Thoughts?

Yes, agreed.

Best regards,
houzj

  8. Re: Consider Parallelism While Planning For REFRESH MATERIALIZED VIEW

    Bharath Rupireddy <bharath.rupireddyforpostgres@gmail.com> — 2020-12-30T03:49:55Z

    On Wed, Dec 30, 2020 at 8:03 AM Hou, Zhijie <houzj.fnst@cn.fujitsu.com> wrote:
> > Yeah without explain analyze we can not show whether the parallelism is
> > picked in the test cases. What we could do is that we can add a plain RMV
> > test case in write_parallel.sql after CMV so that at least we can be ensured
> > that the parallelism will be picked because of the enforcement there. We
> > can always see the parallelism for the select part of explain analyze CMV
> > in write_parallel.sql and the same select query gets planned even in RMV
> > cases.
> >
> > IMO, the patch in this thread can go with test case addition to
> > write_parallel.sql. since it is very small.
> >
> > Thoughts?
>
> Yes, agreed.

Thanks. Added the test case. Attaching v2 patch. Please have a look.


With Regards,
Bharath Rupireddy.
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com

  9. Re: Consider Parallelism While Planning For REFRESH MATERIALIZED VIEW

    Luc Vlaming <luc@swarm64.com> — 2021-01-04T08:04:16Z

    On 30-12-2020 04:49, Bharath Rupireddy wrote:
> On Wed, Dec 30, 2020 at 8:03 AM Hou, Zhijie <houzj.fnst@cn.fujitsu.com> wrote:
>>> Yeah without explain analyze we can not show whether the parallelism is
>>> picked in the test cases. What we could do is that we can add a plain RMV
>>> test case in write_parallel.sql after CMV so that at least we can be ensured
>>> that the parallelism will be picked because of the enforcement there. We
>>> can always see the parallelism for the select part of explain analyze CMV
>>> in write_parallel.sql and the same select query gets planned even in RMV
>>> cases.
>>>
>>> IMO, the patch in this thread can go with test case addition to
>>> write_parallel.sql. since it is very small.
>>>
>>> Thoughts?
>>
>> Yes, agreed.
> 
> Thanks. Added the test case. Attaching v2 patch. Please have a look.
> 
> 
> With Regards,
> Bharath Rupireddy.
> EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
> 

Hi,

Looks good to me and a nice simple improvement.

Passes everything according to http://cfbot.cputube.org/ so marked it 
therefore as ready for commiter.

Cheers,
Luc

  10. Re: Consider Parallelism While Planning For REFRESH MATERIALIZED VIEW

    Luc Vlaming <luc@swarm64.com> — 2021-01-04T08:04:34Z

    The following review has been posted through the commitfest application:
make installcheck-world:  tested, passed
Implements feature:       tested, passed
Spec compliant:           not tested
Documentation:            not tested

passes according to http://cfbot.cputube.org/

The new status of this patch is: Ready for Committer

  11. Re: Consider Parallelism While Planning For REFRESH MATERIALIZED VIEW

    Thomas Munro <thomas.munro@gmail.com> — 2021-03-15T05:08:22Z

    On Mon, Jan 4, 2021 at 9:05 PM Luc Vlaming <luc@swarm64.com> wrote:
> The new status of this patch is: Ready for Committer

I think the comments above this might as well be removed, because they
aren't very convincing:

+-- Allow parallel planning of the underlying query for refresh materialized
+-- view. We can be ensured that parallelism will be picked because of the
+-- enforcement done at the beginning of the test.
+refresh materialized view parallel_mat_view;

If you just leave the REFRESH command, at least it'll be exercised,
and I know you have a separate CF entry to add EXPLAIN support for
REFRESH.  So I'd just rip these weasel words out and then in a later
commit you can add the EXPLAIN there where it's obviously missing.

While reading some back history, I saw that commit e9baa5e9 introduced
parallelism for CREATE M V, but REFRESH was ripped out of the original
patch by Robert, who said:

> The problem with a case like REFRESH MATERIALIZED VIEW is that there's
> nothing to prevent something that gets run in the course of the query
> from trying to access the view (and the heavyweight lock won't prevent
> that, due to group locking). That's probably a stupid thing to do,
> but it can't be allowed to break the world. The other cases are safe
> from that particular problem because the table doesn't exist yet.

Hmmm.

  12. Re: Consider Parallelism While Planning For REFRESH MATERIALIZED VIEW

    Amit Kapila <amit.kapila16@gmail.com> — 2021-03-15T06:28:37Z

    On Mon, Mar 15, 2021 at 10:39 AM Thomas Munro <thomas.munro@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On Mon, Jan 4, 2021 at 9:05 PM Luc Vlaming <luc@swarm64.com> wrote:
>
> While reading some back history, I saw that commit e9baa5e9 introduced
> parallelism for CREATE M V, but REFRESH was ripped out of the original
> patch by Robert, who said:
>
> > The problem with a case like REFRESH MATERIALIZED VIEW is that there's
> > nothing to prevent something that gets run in the course of the query
> > from trying to access the view (and the heavyweight lock won't prevent
> > that, due to group locking). That's probably a stupid thing to do,
> > but it can't be allowed to break the world. The other cases are safe
> > from that particular problem because the table doesn't exist yet.
>
> Hmmm.
>

I am not sure but we might want to add this in comments of the refresh
materialize view function so that it would be easier for future
readers to understand why we have not enabled parallelism for this
case.

-- 
With Regards,
Amit Kapila.

  13. Re: Consider Parallelism While Planning For REFRESH MATERIALIZED VIEW

    Bharath Rupireddy <bharath.rupireddyforpostgres@gmail.com> — 2021-03-15T07:25:27Z

    On Mon, Mar 15, 2021 at 10:38 AM Thomas Munro <thomas.munro@gmail.com> wrote:
> While reading some back history, I saw that commit e9baa5e9 introduced
> parallelism for CREATE M V, but REFRESH was ripped out of the original
> patch by Robert, who said:
>
> > The problem with a case like REFRESH MATERIALIZED VIEW is that there's
> > nothing to prevent something that gets run in the course of the query
> > from trying to access the view (and the heavyweight lock won't prevent
> > that, due to group locking). That's probably a stupid thing to do,
> > but it can't be allowed to break the world. The other cases are safe
> > from that particular problem because the table doesn't exist yet.

Please correct me if my understanding of the above comment (from the
commit e9baa5e9) is wrong -  even if the leader opens the matview
relation in exclusive mode, because of group locking(in case we allow
parallel workers to feed in the data to the new heap that gets created
for RMV, see ExecRefreshMatView->make_new_heap), can other sessions
still access the matview relation with older data?

I performed below testing to prove myself wrong for the above understanding:
session 1:
1) added few rows to the table t1 on which the mv1 is defined;
2) refresh materialized view mv1;

session 2:
1) select count(*) from mv1;   ---> this query is blocked until
session 1's step (2) is completed and gives the latest result even if
the underlying data-generating query runs select part in parallel.

Is there anything I'm missing here?

With Regards,
Bharath Rupireddy.
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com

  14. Re: Consider Parallelism While Planning For REFRESH MATERIALIZED VIEW

    Thomas Munro <thomas.munro@gmail.com> — 2021-03-16T01:41:14Z

    On Mon, Mar 15, 2021 at 8:25 PM Bharath Rupireddy
<bharath.rupireddyforpostgres@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > The problem with a case like REFRESH MATERIALIZED VIEW is that there's
> > > nothing to prevent something that gets run in the course of the query
> > > from trying to access the view (and the heavyweight lock won't prevent
> > > that, due to group locking). That's probably a stupid thing to do,
> > > but it can't be allowed to break the world. The other cases are safe
> > > from that particular problem because the table doesn't exist yet.
>
> Please correct me if my understanding of the above comment (from the
> commit e9baa5e9) is wrong -  even if the leader opens the matview
> relation in exclusive mode, because of group locking(in case we allow
> parallel workers to feed in the data to the new heap that gets created
> for RMV, see ExecRefreshMatView->make_new_heap), can other sessions
> still access the matview relation with older data?
>
> I performed below testing to prove myself wrong for the above understanding:
> session 1:
> 1) added few rows to the table t1 on which the mv1 is defined;
> 2) refresh materialized view mv1;
>
> session 2:
> 1) select count(*) from mv1;   ---> this query is blocked until
> session 1's step (2) is completed and gives the latest result even if
> the underlying data-generating query runs select part in parallel.
>
> Is there anything I'm missing here?

I think he was talking about things like functions that try to access
the mv from inside the same query, in a worker.  I haven't figured out
exactly which hazards he meant.  I thought about wrong-relfilenode
hazards and combocid hazards, but considering the way this thing
always inserts into a fresh table before performing merge or swap
steps later, I don't yet see why this is different from any other
insert-from-select-with-gather.

With the script below you can reach this error in the leader:

postgres=# refresh materialized view CONCURRENTLY mv;
ERROR:  cannot start commands during a parallel operation
CONTEXT:  SQL function "crazy"

But that's reachable on master too, even if you change crazy() to do
"select 42 from pg_class limit 1" instead of reading mv, when
performing a  CREATE M V without NO DATA.  :-(  Without parallel
leader participation it runs to completion.

===8<===

set parallel_leader_participation = off;
set parallel_setup_cost = 0;
set min_parallel_table_scan_size = 0;
set parallel_tuple_cost = 0;

drop table if exists t cascade;

create table t (i int);
insert into t select generate_series(1, 100000);
create materialized view mv as select 42::int i;
create or replace function crazy() returns int as $$ select i from mv
limit 1; $$ language sql parallel safe;
drop materialized view mv;
create materialized view mv as select i + crazy() i from t with no data;
create unique index on mv(i);

refresh materialized view mv;
refresh materialized view concurrently mv;

begin;
refresh materialized view mv;
refresh materialized view mv;
commit;

begin;
refresh materialized view concurrently mv;
refresh materialized view concurrently mv;
commit;

===8<===

PS, off-topic observation made while trying to think of ways to break
your patch: I noticed that REFRESH CONCURRENTLY spends a lot of time
in refresh_by_match_merge()'s big FULL JOIN.  That is separate from
the view query that you're parallelising here, and is used to perform
the merge between a temporary table and the target MV table.  I hacked
the code a bit so that it wasn't scanning a temporary table
(unparallelisable), and tried out the Parallel Hash Full Join patch
which I intend to commit soon.  This allowed REFRESH CONCURRENTLY to
complete much faster.  Huzzah!  Unfortunately that query also does
ORDER BY tid; I guess we could remove that to skip a Sort and use
Gather instead of the more expensive Gather Merge, and hopefully soon
a pushed-down Insert.

  15. Re: Consider Parallelism While Planning For REFRESH MATERIALIZED VIEW

    Thomas Munro <thomas.munro@gmail.com> — 2021-03-17T02:08:01Z

    On Tue, Mar 16, 2021 at 2:41 PM Thomas Munro <thomas.munro@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 15, 2021 at 8:25 PM Bharath Rupireddy
> <bharath.rupireddyforpostgres@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > The problem with a case like REFRESH MATERIALIZED VIEW is that there's
> > > > nothing to prevent something that gets run in the course of the query
> > > > from trying to access the view (and the heavyweight lock won't prevent
> > > > that, due to group locking). That's probably a stupid thing to do,
> > > > but it can't be allowed to break the world. The other cases are safe
> > > > from that particular problem because the table doesn't exist yet.
> >
> > Please correct me if my understanding of the above comment (from the
> > commit e9baa5e9) is wrong -  even if the leader opens the matview
> > relation in exclusive mode, because of group locking(in case we allow
> > parallel workers to feed in the data to the new heap that gets created
> > for RMV, see ExecRefreshMatView->make_new_heap), can other sessions
> > still access the matview relation with older data?
> >
> > I performed below testing to prove myself wrong for the above understanding:
> > session 1:
> > 1) added few rows to the table t1 on which the mv1 is defined;
> > 2) refresh materialized view mv1;
> >
> > session 2:
> > 1) select count(*) from mv1;   ---> this query is blocked until
> > session 1's step (2) is completed and gives the latest result even if
> > the underlying data-generating query runs select part in parallel.
> >
> > Is there anything I'm missing here?
>
> I think he was talking about things like functions that try to access
> the mv from inside the same query, in a worker.  I haven't figured out
> exactly which hazards he meant.  I thought about wrong-relfilenode
> hazards and combocid hazards, but considering the way this thing
> always inserts into a fresh table before performing merge or swap
> steps later, I don't yet see why this is different from any other
> insert-from-select-with-gather.

I asked Robert if he had some hazard in mind that we haven't already
discussed here when he wrote that, and didn't recall any.  I think
we're OK here.

I added the "concurrently" variant to the regression test, just to get
it exercised too.

The documentation needed a small tweak where we have a list of
data-writing commands that are allowed to use parallelism.  That run
of sentences was getting a bit tortured so I converted it into a
bullet list; I hope I didn't upset the documentation style police.

Pushed.  Thanks for working on this!  This is really going to fly with
INSERT pushdown.  The 3 merge queries used by CONCURRENTLY will take
some more work.