Horton

Thread

Commits

  1. Minor corrections for partition pruning

  2. Fix incorrect pruning of NULL partition for boolean IS NOT clauses

  1. BUG #18344: Pruning tables partitioned by bool range fails with invalid strategy

    The Post Office <noreply@postgresql.org> — 2024-02-15T09:00:01Z

    The following bug has been logged on the website:

Bug reference:      18344
Logged by:          Alexander Lakhin
Email address:      exclusion@gmail.com
PostgreSQL version: 16.2
Operating system:   Ubuntu 22.04
Description:        

The following query:
CREATE TABLE t (b bool, i int) PARTITION BY RANGE (b, i);
CREATE TABLE tp PARTITION OF t FOR VALUES FROM (false, 0) TO (false, 1);
SELECT * FROM t WHERE b IS NOT true;

fails with ERROR:  invalid strategy number 0.

Reproduced on REL_12_STABLE .. master.
The first bad commit for this anomaly is e0693faf7.

  2. Re: BUG #18344: Pruning tables partitioned by bool range fails with invalid strategy

    Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> — 2024-02-15T16:28:23Z

    PG Bug reporting form <noreply@postgresql.org> writes:
> The following query:
> CREATE TABLE t (b bool, i int) PARTITION BY RANGE (b, i);
> CREATE TABLE tp PARTITION OF t FOR VALUES FROM (false, 0) TO (false, 1);
> SELECT * FROM t WHERE b IS NOT true;
> fails with ERROR:  invalid strategy number 0.
> Reproduced on REL_12_STABLE .. master.
> The first bad commit for this anomaly is e0693faf7.

What seems to be happening is that gen_prune_step_op is getting
op_is_ne = true and doing this:

	/*
	 * For clauses that contain an <> operator, set opstrategy to
	 * InvalidStrategy to signal get_matching_list_bounds to do the right
	 * thing.
	 */
	opstep->opstrategy = op_is_ne ? InvalidStrategy : opstrategy;

but then we're failing in get_matching_range_bounds, ie somebody
taught get_matching_list_bounds to do the right thing but not
any of the other code paths.

I'm also wondering how we got there in the first place.  It looks like
match_boolean_partition_clause thinks it can translate "b IS NOT true"
to "b <> true", which is flat wrong --- it gives the wrong result for
null.

			regards, tom lane

  3. Re: BUG #18344: Pruning tables partitioned by bool range fails with invalid strategy

    David Rowley <dgrowleyml@gmail.com> — 2024-02-16T02:56:31Z

    On Fri, 16 Feb 2024 at 05:28, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
> What seems to be happening is that gen_prune_step_op is getting
> op_is_ne = true and doing this:
>
>         /*
>          * For clauses that contain an <> operator, set opstrategy to
>          * InvalidStrategy to signal get_matching_list_bounds to do the right
>          * thing.
>          */
>         opstep->opstrategy = op_is_ne ? InvalidStrategy : opstrategy;
>
> but then we're failing in get_matching_range_bounds, ie somebody
> taught get_matching_list_bounds to do the right thing but not
> any of the other code paths.

hmm, yeah. I'm just trying to wrap my head around if this can even
work for RANGE partitioned tables.

> I'm also wondering how we got there in the first place.  It looks like
> match_boolean_partition_clause thinks it can translate "b IS NOT true"
> to "b <> true", which is flat wrong --- it gives the wrong result for
> null.

Thought I'd fixed that in e0693faf7, but looks like I only tested it
with DEFAULT partitions, not NULL partitions. A fairly simple fix for
that part:

                /* Always include the default partition if any. */
                result->scan_default = partition_bound_has_default(boundinfo);

+               /* Likewise for the NULL partition, if any */
+               result->scan_null = partition_bound_accepts_nulls(boundinfo);

I'll look at the RANGE <> bool stuff.

David

  4. Re: BUG #18344: Pruning tables partitioned by bool range fails with invalid strategy

    David Rowley <dgrowleyml@gmail.com> — 2024-02-16T12:32:31Z

    On Fri, 16 Feb 2024 at 05:28, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
> What seems to be happening is that gen_prune_step_op is getting
> op_is_ne = true and doing this:
>
>         /*
>          * For clauses that contain an <> operator, set opstrategy to
>          * InvalidStrategy to signal get_matching_list_bounds to do the right
>          * thing.
>          */
>         opstep->opstrategy = op_is_ne ? InvalidStrategy : opstrategy;
>
> but then we're failing in get_matching_range_bounds, ie somebody
> taught get_matching_list_bounds to do the right thing but not
> any of the other code paths.

Yeah, prior to e0693faf7, we always did:

       partclause->op_is_ne = false;

so the code you quoted would always use the equality opstrategy,
therefore wouldn't hit the "if (opstrategy == InvalidStrategy)" block
in get_matching_list_bounds().

The old code wrongly assumed "bool IS NOT true" was the same as "bool
IS false" and vice-versa.  I had thought I could fix this by making it
use the same code that we do for cases like int4col <> 123, but:

a) only get_matching_list_bounds() knows how to handle those, not the
equivalent hash and range versions and;
b) bool is not true matches NULLs, but int4col <> 123 does not.

So, I'm a little unsure if we should try and make bool IS NOT clauses
prune partitions at all. It was a bug in the original code that
thought we could do that, and it looks like I didn't do a good job of
fixing that.

I see three options:

1) Make get_matching_list_bounds() work for bool IS NOT clauses by
properly including the NULL partition when handling a bool IS NOT
clause.
2) Just don't generate a pruning step for bool IS NOT clauses.
3) Just always include the NULL partition in
get_matching_list_bounds's "if (opstrategy == InvalidStrategy)" block.

I don't quite see how to do #1 as we don't have an easy way to tell if
we're handling bool IS NOT clauses inside get_matching_list_bounds().
Maybe we could check the comparison function is btboolcmp. That's
kinda cruddy. We don't have oid_symbol for pg_proc.dat as we do in
pg_operator.dat, so there's no #define for the pg_proc entry's Oid.

If we do #2, I'm concerned we'll regress someone's workload by
including the other bool partition.  Likewise, for #3, we'll include
the NULL partition for non-boolean cases, which could cause someone
problems.

The attached does #3 plus disables "bool IS NOT" pruning for RANGE and
HASH to avoid the reported "invalid strategy number 0." error.

Maybe we could do #1 by checking for partsupfunc.fn_oid == 1693 in the
back branches and come up with a cleaner way in master by adding a new
field to PartitionPruneStepOp.

Keen to get feedback on this one. Also included Amit and Álvaro as
they might have another idea.

I also noticed that the following code returns PARTCLAUSE_NOMATCH:

if (part_scheme->strategy != PARTITION_STRATEGY_LIST)
    return PARTCLAUSE_NOMATCH;

I think that should return PARTCLAUSE_UNSUPPORTED. But it's really
only an inefficiency rather than a bug, I think.

David

  5. Re: BUG #18344: Pruning tables partitioned by bool range fails with invalid strategy

    David Rowley <dgrowleyml@gmail.com> — 2024-02-18T12:53:29Z

    On Sat, 17 Feb 2024 at 01:32, David Rowley <dgrowleyml@gmail.com> wrote:
> I see three options:
>
> 1) Make get_matching_list_bounds() work for bool IS NOT clauses by
> properly including the NULL partition when handling a bool IS NOT
> clause.
> 2) Just don't generate a pruning step for bool IS NOT clauses.
> 3) Just always include the NULL partition in
> get_matching_list_bounds's "if (opstrategy == InvalidStrategy)" block.

It turns out there's a 4th, and much better option that allows this
just to work without any weirdness.

The method used in partprune.c to handle "partkey IN ('const1',
'const2')" is to transform that into "partkey = 'const1' OR partkey =
'const2'". Whenever we see a ScalarArrayOpExpr with consts, we just
form such an OR clause and recursively generate pruning steps for the
OR clause. That'll end up creating two pruning steps and combining
them with a PARTPRUNE_COMBINE_UNION.

We can do the same for BooleanTests. Given a clause such as: "partkey
IS NOT false", we can just generate the clause "partkey IS true OR
partkey IS NULL" and recursively generate steps for that.

I've attached a draft patch.  I'll work on this more after I sleep.

I'm tempted to go a bit further in master only and add support for
bool IS NOT UNKNOWN and bool IS UNKNOWN using the same method.

David

  6. Re: BUG #18344: Pruning tables partitioned by bool range fails with invalid strategy

    Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> — 2024-02-18T16:24:59Z

    David Rowley <dgrowleyml@gmail.com> writes:
> We can do the same for BooleanTests. Given a clause such as: "partkey
> IS NOT false", we can just generate the clause "partkey IS true OR
> partkey IS NULL" and recursively generate steps for that.

+1 ... sounds clean and clearly correct.

> I'm tempted to go a bit further in master only and add support for
> bool IS NOT UNKNOWN and bool IS UNKNOWN using the same method.

These are the same as IS NOT NULL and IS NULL, so I don't see the
need for an OR?

			regards, tom lane

  7. Re: BUG #18344: Pruning tables partitioned by bool range fails with invalid strategy

    David Rowley <dgrowleyml@gmail.com> — 2024-02-18T23:49:11Z

    On Mon, 19 Feb 2024 at 05:25, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
>
> David Rowley <dgrowleyml@gmail.com> writes:
> > We can do the same for BooleanTests. Given a clause such as: "partkey
> > IS NOT false", we can just generate the clause "partkey IS true OR
> > partkey IS NULL" and recursively generate steps for that.
>
> +1 ... sounds clean and clearly correct.

Here's a more complete patch for this.  I included some tests for LIST
and RANGE partitioned tables. I did manual testing for HASH, and was
on the fence about covering that too.

I did try the following using the table from the tests:

select * from boolrangep where a is not true and not b and c = 25 and
a is not null;

When will be effectively transformed into:

select * from boolrangep where (a is false or a is null) and not b and
c = 25 and a is not null;

It seems that's unable to prune the NULL partition but that mostly
seems to be due to a limitation of the current design. I'm not sure
it's worth going to any additional trouble to make that work.  It
seems a bit unlikely, especially so given how long the BooleanTest
pruning stuff was broken for before anyone noticed.

> > I'm tempted to go a bit further in master only and add support for
> > bool IS NOT UNKNOWN and bool IS UNKNOWN using the same method.
>
> These are the same as IS NOT NULL and IS NULL, so I don't see the
> need for an OR?

Uh, yeah. True. That makes it even more simple. Just use
PARTCLAUSE_MATCH_NULLNESS.

David

  8. Re: BUG #18344: Pruning tables partitioned by bool range fails with invalid strategy

    Tender Wang <tndrwang@gmail.com> — 2024-02-19T08:21:11Z

    David Rowley <dgrowleyml@gmail.com> 于2024年2月19日周一 07:49写道：

> On Mon, 19 Feb 2024 at 05:25, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
> >
> > David Rowley <dgrowleyml@gmail.com> writes:
> > > We can do the same for BooleanTests. Given a clause such as: "partkey
> > > IS NOT false", we can just generate the clause "partkey IS true OR
> > > partkey IS NULL" and recursively generate steps for that.
> >
> > +1 ... sounds clean and clearly correct.
>
> Here's a more complete patch for this.  I included some tests for LIST
> and RANGE partitioned tables. I did manual testing for HASH, and was
> on the fence about covering that too.
>
> I did try the following using the table from the tests:
>
> select * from boolrangep where a is not true and not b and c = 25 and
> a is not null;
>
> When will be effectively transformed into:
>
> select * from boolrangep where (a is false or a is null) and not b and
> c = 25 and a is not null;
>
> It seems that's unable to prune the NULL partition but that mostly
> seems to be due to a limitation of the current design. I'm not sure
> it's worth going to any additional trouble to make that work.  It
> seems a bit unlikely, especially so given how long the BooleanTest
> pruning stuff was broken for before anyone noticed.
>
> > > I'm tempted to go a bit further in master only and add support for
> > > bool IS NOT UNKNOWN and bool IS UNKNOWN using the same method.
> >
> > These are the same as IS NOT NULL and IS NULL, so I don't see the
> > need for an OR?
>
> Uh, yeah. True. That makes it even more simple. Just use
> PARTCLAUSE_MATCH_NULLNESS.
>
> David
>

After git apply fix_partprune_BooleanTests.patch on master, I got below
warnings:

partprune.c: In function ‘match_clause_to_partition_key’:
../../../src/include/nodes/nodes.h:221:25: warning: initialization of
‘BooleanTest *’ {aka ‘struct BooleanTest *’} from incompatible pointer type
‘Expr *’ {aka ‘struct Expr *’} [-Wincompatible-pointer-types]
  221 | #define copyObject(obj) ((typeof(obj)) copyObjectImpl(obj))
      |                         ^
partprune.c:1824:32: note: in expansion of macro ‘copyObject’
 1824 |    BooleanTest *new_booltest = copyObject(clause);

Maybe this: BooleanTest *new_booltest = (BooleanTest *) copyObject(clause);


-- 
Tender Wang
OpenPie:  https://en.openpie.com/

  9. Re: BUG #18344: Pruning tables partitioned by bool range fails with invalid strategy

    Amit Langote <amitlangote09@gmail.com> — 2024-02-19T09:45:21Z

    Hi David,

On Mon, Feb 19, 2024 at 8:49 AM David Rowley <dgrowleyml@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Mon, 19 Feb 2024 at 05:25, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
> >
> > David Rowley <dgrowleyml@gmail.com> writes:
> > > We can do the same for BooleanTests. Given a clause such as: "partkey
> > > IS NOT false", we can just generate the clause "partkey IS true OR
> > > partkey IS NULL" and recursively generate steps for that.
> >
> > +1 ... sounds clean and clearly correct.
>
> Here's a more complete patch for this.

Thanks for working on this.

Overall, I too like this idea.

Though I noticed that this approach will effectively disable pruning
with a clause on the 2nd key column, if any, present in the query:

CREATE TABLE t (b bool, i int) PARTITION BY RANGE (b, i);
CREATE TABLE tp PARTITION OF t FOR VALUES FROM (false, 0) TO (false, 1);
CREATE TABLE tp2 PARTITION OF t FOR VALUES FROM (false, 1) TO (false, 2);
CREATE TABLE tp3 PARTITION OF t FOR VALUES FROM (true, 0) TO (true, 1);
CREATE TABLE tp4 PARTITION OF t FOR VALUES FROM (true, 1) TO (true, 2);

-- tp2 should be pruned, but is not.
explain SELECT * FROM t WHERE b IS NOT true and i = 0;
                          QUERY PLAN
--------------------------------------------------------------
 Append  (cost=0.00..81.81 rows=12 width=5)
   ->  Seq Scan on tp t_1  (cost=0.00..40.88 rows=6 width=5)
         Filter: ((b IS NOT TRUE) AND (i = 0))
   ->  Seq Scan on tp2 t_2  (cost=0.00..40.88 rows=6 width=5)
         Filter: ((b IS NOT TRUE) AND (i = 0))
(5 rows)

-- like it is in this case
explain SELECT * FROM t WHERE b IS false and i = 0;
                     QUERY PLAN
-----------------------------------------------------
 Seq Scan on tp t  (cost=0.00..40.88 rows=6 width=5)
   Filter: ((b IS FALSE) AND (i = 0))
(2 rows)

I guess we'll have to live with that, because the generate_opsteps
code that generates multi-column pruning steps only supports scenarios
where each key's matched clause is a simple comparison, not, for
example, where it is an OR expression.

-- 
Thanks, Amit Langote

  10. Re: BUG #18344: Pruning tables partitioned by bool range fails with invalid strategy

    Alexander Law <exclusion@gmail.com> — 2024-02-20T03:00:00Z

    Hello David,

19.02.2024 02:49, David Rowley wrote:
>
> Here's a more complete patch for this.  I included some tests for LIST
> and RANGE partitioned tables. I did manual testing for HASH, and was
> on the fence about covering that too.
>

Thank you for the fix!

Beside that, I'm a bit confused by the opstrategy description for
get_matching_range_bounds().
Above that function we have:
  * 'opstrategy' if non-zero must be a btree strategy number.

But as we could see, zero opstrategy is not valid for the function (so
"if non-zero" is meaningless here?), unlike opstrategy for
get_matching_list_bounds(), which has the same description, but the latter
function contains:
     /* Special case handling of values coming from a <> operator clause. */
     if (opstrategy == InvalidStrategy)
...

Best regards,
Alexander

  11. Re: BUG #18344: Pruning tables partitioned by bool range fails with invalid strategy

    David Rowley <dgrowleyml@gmail.com> — 2024-02-20T03:50:25Z

    On Tue, 20 Feb 2024 at 16:00, Alexander Lakhin <exclusion@gmail.com> wrote:
> Beside that, I'm a bit confused by the opstrategy description for
> get_matching_range_bounds().
> Above that function we have:
>   * 'opstrategy' if non-zero must be a btree strategy number.
>
> But as we could see, zero opstrategy is not valid for the function (so
> "if non-zero" is meaningless here?), unlike opstrategy for
> get_matching_list_bounds(), which has the same description, but the latter
> function contains:
>      /* Special case handling of values coming from a <> operator clause. */
>      if (opstrategy == InvalidStrategy)

Yeah, that seems worth fixing in master as, I agree, the comment is
wrong.  Possibly, we considered supporting <> for RANGE partitioning
at some point, I don't recall.

I was also working on a fix for what I mentioned in [1], which, I
think, is master-only material.  I'd say we can fix the comment as
part of that.

The patch for both is attached.

David

[1] https://postgr.es/m/CAApHDvqriy8mPOFJ_Bd66YGXJ4+XULpv-4YdB+ePdCQFztyisA@mail.gmail.com

  12. Re: BUG #18344: Pruning tables partitioned by bool range fails with invalid strategy

    David Rowley <dgrowleyml@gmail.com> — 2024-02-20T05:39:19Z

    On Tue, 20 Feb 2024 at 16:50, David Rowley <dgrowleyml@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On Tue, 20 Feb 2024 at 16:00, Alexander Lakhin <exclusion@gmail.com> wrote:
> > Beside that, I'm a bit confused by the opstrategy description for
> > get_matching_range_bounds().
> > Above that function we have:
> >   * 'opstrategy' if non-zero must be a btree strategy number.
> >

> Yeah, that seems worth fixing in master as, I agree, the comment is
> wrong.  Possibly, we considered supporting <> for RANGE partitioning
> at some point, I don't recall.
>
> I was also working on a fix for what I mentioned in [1], which, I
> think, is master-only material.  I'd say we can fix the comment as
> part of that.
>
> The patch for both is attached.

I've pushed this patch.

David