Re: BitmapHeapScan streaming read user and prelim refactoring
Melanie Plageman <melanieplageman@gmail.com>
On Tue, Apr 23, 2024 at 6:43 PM Tomas Vondra <tomas.vondra@enterprisedb.com> wrote: > > On 4/23/24 18:05, Melanie Plageman wrote: > > The patch with a fix is attached. I put the test in > > src/test/regress/sql/join.sql. It isn't the perfect location because > > it is testing something exercisable with a join but not directly > > related to the fact that it is a join. I also considered > > src/test/regress/sql/select.sql, but it also isn't directly related to > > the query being a SELECT query. If there is a better place for a test > > of a bitmap heap scan edge case, let me know. > > I don't see a problem with adding this to join.sql - why wouldn't this > count as something related to a join? Sure, it's not like this code > matters only for joins, but if you look at join.sql that applies to a > number of other tests (e.g. there are a couple btree tests). I suppose it's true that other tests in this file use joins to test other code. I guess if we limited join.sql to containing tests of join implementation, it would be rather small. I just imagined it would be nice if tests were grouped by what they were testing -- not how they were testing it. > That being said, it'd be good to explain in the comment why we're > testing this particular plan, not just what the plan looks like. You mean I should explain in the test comment why I included the EXPLAIN plan output? (because it needs to contain a bitmapheapscan to actually be testing anything) I do have a detailed explanation in my test comment of why this particular query exercises the code we want to test. > > One other note: there is some concurrency effect in the parallel > > schedule group containing "join" where you won't trip the assert if > > all the tests in that group in the parallel schedule are run. But, if > > you would like to verify that the test exercises the correct code, > > just reduce the group containing "join". > > > > That is ... interesting. Doesn't that mean that most test runs won't > actually detect the problem? That would make the test a bit useless. Yes, I should really have thought about it more. After further investigation, I found that the reason it doesn't trip the assert when the join test is run concurrently with other tests is that the SELECT query doesn't use the skip fetch optimization because the VACUUM doesn't set the pages all visible in the VM. In this case, it's because the tuples' xmins are not before VacuumCutoffs->OldestXmin (which is derived from GetOldestNonRemovableTransactionId()). After thinking about it more, I suppose we can't add a test that relies on the relation being all visible in the VM in a group in the parallel schedule. I'm not sure this edge case is important enough to merit its own group or an isolation test. What do you think? - Melanie
Commits
-
Fix bitmapheapscan incorrect recheck of NULL tuples
- aea916fe555a 18.0 landed
-
Increase default maintenance_io_concurrency to 16
- cc6be07ebde2 18.0 landed
-
Separate TBM[Shared|Private]Iterator and TBMIterateResult
- 944e81bf99db 18.0 landed
-
Improve read_stream.c advice for dense streams.
- 7ea8cd15661e 18.0 landed
-
Increase default effective_io_concurrency to 16
- ff79b5b2aba0 18.0 landed
-
Delay extraction of TIDBitmap per page offsets
- bfe56cdf9a4e 18.0 landed
-
Add lossy indicator to TBMIterateResult
- b8778c4cd8bc 18.0 landed
-
Move BitmapTableScan per-scan setup into a helper
- a5358c14b2fe 18.0 landed
-
Add and use BitmapHeapScanDescData struct
- f7a8fc10ccb8 18.0 landed
-
Fix bitmap table scan crash on iterator release
- 754c610e13b8 18.0 landed
-
Bitmap Table Scans use unified TBMIterator
- 1a0da347a7ac 18.0 landed
-
Add common interface for TBMIterators
- 7f9d4187e7ba 18.0 landed
-
Make table_scan_bitmap_next_block() async-friendly
- de380a62b5da 18.0 landed
-
Move EXPLAIN counter increment to heapam_scan_bitmap_next_block
- 7bd7aa4d3067 18.0 landed
-
Refactor tidstore.c iterator buffering.
- f6bef362cac8 18.0 cited
-
BitmapHeapScan: Remove incorrect assert and reset field
- a3e6c6f92991 17.0 landed
-
Change BitmapAdjustPrefetchIterator to accept BlockNumber
- 92641d8d651e 17.0 landed
-
BitmapHeapScan: Use correct recheck flag for skip_fetch
- 1fdb0ce9b109 17.0 landed
-
BitmapHeapScan: Push skip_fetch optimization into table AM
- 04e72ed617be 17.0 landed
-
BitmapHeapScan: postpone setting can_skip_fetch
- fe1431e39cdd 17.0 landed
-
BitmapHeapScan: begin scan after bitmap creation
- 1577081e9614 17.0 landed
-
Fix EXPLAIN Bitmap heap scan to count pages with no visible tuples
- f3e4581acdc8 12.19 landed
- 992189a3e94d 13.15 landed
- 262757b73286 14.12 landed
- d3d95f583995 15.7 landed
- 1f4eb734200a 16.3 landed
- 0960ae1967d0 17.0 landed
-
Remove redundant snapshot copying from parallel leader to workers
- 84c18acaf690 17.0 landed
-
Remove some obsolete smgrcloseall() calls.
- 6a8ffe812d19 17.0 cited
-
Remove the "snapshot too old" feature.
- f691f5b80a85 17.0 cited
-
Compute XID horizon for page level index vacuum on primary.
- 558a9165e081 12.0 cited