[idea] table partition + hash join
От | Kouhei Kaigai |
---|---|
Тема | [idea] table partition + hash join |
Дата | |
Msg-id | 9A28C8860F777E439AA12E8AEA7694F8010F672B@BPXM15GP.gisp.nec.co.jp обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответы |
Re: [idea] table partition + hash join
|
Список | pgsql-hackers |
Hello, It might be a corner case optimization, however, it looks to me worth to share the idea and have discussion. Table partition + Hash join pushdown ------------------------------------ Hash-join logic works most effectively when inner relation can be stored within a hash table. So, it is a meaningful optimization if we can filter out inner tuples not to be referenced in join preliminary. Let's assume a table which is partitioned to four portions, and individual child relations have constraint by hash-value of its ID field. tbl_parent + tbl_child_0 ... CHECK(hash_func(id) % 4 = 0) + tbl_child_1 ... CHECK(hash_func(id) % 4 = 1) + tbl_child_2... CHECK(hash_func(id) % 4 = 2) + tbl_child_3 ... CHECK(hash_func(id) % 4 = 3) If someone tried to join another relation with tbl_parent using equivalence condition, like X = tbl_parent.ID, we know inner tuples that does not satisfies the condition hash_func(X) % 4 = 0 shall be never joined to the tuples in tbl_child_0. So, we can omit to load these tuples to inner hash table preliminary, then it potentially allows to split the inner hash-table. Current typical plan structure is below: HashJoin -> Append -> SeqScan on tbl_child_0 -> SeqScan on tbl_child_1 -> SeqScan on tbl_child_2 -> SeqScanon tbl_child_3 -> Hash -> SeqScan on other_table It may be rewritable to: Append -> HashJoin -> SeqScan on tbl_child_0 -> Hash ... Filter: hash_func(X) % 4 = 0 -> SeqScan on other_table -> HashJoin -> SeqScan on tbl_child_1 -> Hash ... Filter: hash_func(X) % 4 = 1 -> SeqScan on other_table -> HashJoin -> SeqScan on tbl_child_2 -> Hash ... Filter: hash_func(X) % 4 = 2 -> SeqScan on other_table -> HashJoin -> SeqScan on tbl_child_3 -> Hash ... Filter: hash_func(X) % 4 = 3 -> SeqScan on other_table Good:- Reduction of inner hash table size, eventually, it may reduce nBatches of HashJoin. Bad:- Inner relation has to be scanned multiple times.- Additional CPU cost to evaluate relevant CHECK() constraint whenHash loads inner relation. So, unless Hash plan does not expect inner hash split, above plan is never chosen because of extra cost. However, it may make sense if work_mem is not enough to load all the inner relation at once. Thanks, -- NEC Business Creation Division / PG-Strom Project KaiGai Kohei <kaigai@ak.jp.nec.com>
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: