Re: [PATCH] Push limit to sort through a subquery

From: Konstantin Knizhnik <k(dot)knizhnik(at)postgrespro(dot)ru>
To: pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] Push limit to sort through a subquery
Date: 2017-08-17 15:28:04
Message-ID: 95c2eb82-670b-2d06-106f-31e782442f58@postgrespro.ru
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On 29.04.2017 00:13, Douglas Doole wrote:
>
> If you add this to the commitfest app, more people might look at
> it when the next commitfest opens.
>
>
> I have added it. https://commitfest.postgresql.org/14/1119/
>
> Also, it might help if you can provide a query/ies with numbers
> where this optimization shows improvement.
>
>
> I can't provide the real queries where we encountered the problem
> because they are internal. However I showed a simplified version of
> the queries in my first post.
>
> On our queries, the change made quite a difference - execution time
> dropped from 31.4 seconds to 7.2 seconds. Explain analyze also shows
> that memory use dropped significantly and we didn't have to spill the
> sort to disk
>
> From:
>
> -> Sort (cost=989.95..1013.27 rows=9326 width=30)
> (node_startup_time/loop=31328.891, node_total_time/loop: 31329.756
> rows=2001 loops=1) Buffers: temp read=772 written=11201 lsm_bufmgr
> hits=3392 Sort Key: *** Sort Method: external merge Sort Space Used:
> 89592 Sort Space Type: Disk
>
> To:
>
> -> Sort (cost=989.95..1013.27 rows=9326 width=30)
> (node_startup_time/loop=7123.275, node_total_time/loop: 7123.504
> rows=2001 loops=1) Buffers: lsm_bufmgr hits=3387 Sort Key: *** Sort
> Method: top-N heapsort Sort Space Used: 3256 Sort Space Type: Memory

Attached please find yet another small patch which pushes down LIMIT to
ForeignScan.
I should notice that currently Postgres optimizer is using "Merge
Append" and fetches from remote nodes only required number of tuples.
So even without LIMIT push down, postgres_fdw will not pull the whole
table from remote host.
postgres_fdw is using cursor for fetching data from remote. Default
fetch size is 100, so even without limit remote query will fetch no
more than 100 rows at remote site.

Assume the following example:

postgres=# create extension postgres_fdw;
postgres=# create server shard1 FOREIGN DATA WRAPPER postgres_fdw
options(dbname 'postgres', host 'localhost', port '5432');
postgres=# create server shard2 FOREIGN DATA WRAPPER postgres_fdw
options(dbname 'postgres', host 'localhost', port '5432');
postgres=# CREATE USER MAPPING for $user SERVER shard1 options (user
'$user');
postgres=# CREATE USER MAPPING for $user SERVER shard1 options (user
'$user');
postgres=# CREATE TABLE t(u integer primary key, v integer);
postgres=# CREATE TABLE t1(u integer primary key, v integer);
postgres=# CREATE TABLE t2(u integer primary key, v integer);
postgres=# insert into t1 values (generate_series(1,100000),
random()*100000);
postgres=# insert into t2 values (generate_series(1,100000),
random()*100000);
postgres=# CREATE FOREIGN TABLE t_fdw1() inherits (t) server shard1
options(table_name 't1');
postgres=# CREATE FOREIGN TABLE t_fdw2() inherits (t) server shard2
options(table_name 't2');

postgres=# explain analyze select * from t order by u limit 1;
QUERY PLAN
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Limit (cost=200.15..200.20 rows=1 width=8) (actual time=2.010..2.010
rows=1 loops=1)
-> Merge Append (cost=200.15..449.39 rows=5121 width=8) (actual
time=2.009..2.009 rows=1 loops=1)
Sort Key: t.u
-> Index Scan using t_pkey on t (cost=0.12..8.14 rows=1
width=8) (actual time=0.005..0.005 rows=0 loops=1)
-> Foreign Scan on t_fdw2 (cost=100.00..193.92 rows=2560
width=8) (actual time=1.074..1.074rows=1 loops=1)
-> Foreign Scan on t_fdw1 (cost=100.00..193.92 rows=2560
width=8) (actual time=0.928..0.928rows=1 loops=1)
Planning time: 0.769 ms
Execution time: 6.837 ms
(8 rows)

As you can see foreign scan fetches only one row from each remote node.

But still pushing down limit can have positive effect on performance,
especially if SORT can be replaced with TOP-N.
I got the following results (time in seconds):

Query
original
limit push down
select * from t order by u limit 1
2.276
1.777
select * from t order by v limit 1
100 42

There is index for "u", so fetching records with smallest "u" values can
be done without sorting, so times are similar.
But in case of sorting by "v", pushing down limit allows to use TOP-1
instead of global sort and it reduces query execution time more than 2
times.

--

Konstantin Knizhnik
Postgres Professional: http://www.postgrespro.com
The Russian Postgres Company

Attachment Content-Type Size
limit-fdw-push-down.patch text/x-patch 2.2 KB

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Tom Lane 2017-08-17 15:30:56 Re: pl/perl extension fails on Windows
Previous Message Antonin Houska 2017-08-17 15:22:22 Re: WIP: Aggregation push-down