Re: BUG #19449: Massive performance degradation for complex query on Postgres 16+ (few seconds -> multiple hours)

From: Thomas Munro <thomas(dot)munro(at)gmail(dot)com>
To: Tomas Vondra <tomas(at)vondra(dot)me>
Cc: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Adrian Mönnich <adrian(dot)moennich(at)cern(dot)ch>, Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de>, pgsql-bugs(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org, Tomas Vondra <tv(at)fuzzy(dot)cz>
Subject: Re: BUG #19449: Massive performance degradation for complex query on Postgres 16+ (few seconds -> multiple hours)
Date: 2026-04-16 05:25:01
Message-ID: CA+hUKGL=tHLCbVHMEno2AQentOYL0jTS=iLE0BEgdWPaUDASiA@mail.gmail.com
Views: Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-bugs

On Sun, Apr 5, 2026 at 2:45 AM Tomas Vondra <tomas(at)vondra(dot)me> wrote:
> At this point I was suspecting the data distributions for the join
> columns may be somewhat weird, causing issues for the hashjoin batching.
> For events.contributions.id it's perfectly fine - it's entirely unique,
> with each ID having 1 entry. Unsurprisingly, because it's the PK. But
> for attachments.folders.contribution_id I see this:
>
> SELECT contribution_id, count(*) FROM attachments.folders
> GROUP BY contribution_id ORDER BY 2 DESC;
>
> contribution_id | count
> -----------------+--------
> | 464515
> 5492978 | 67
> 4117499 | 42
> 4045045 | 41
> ...
>
> So there's ~500k entries with NULL, that can't possibly match to
> anything (right)? I assume we still add them to the hash, though.

That's also the conditions required to prevent the
"stop-partitioning-it's-not-working" logic from triggering. That
thing where we know we need to pick a better lower than 100%. But
what?

Did this commit help?

commit 1811f1af98fb237fdd5adb588cd4b57c433b75f8
Author: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
Date: Thu Mar 19 15:21:36 2026 -0400

Improve hash join's handling of tuples with null join keys.

In response to

Browse pgsql-bugs by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Richard Guo 2026-04-16 06:04:49 Re: BUG #19418: SQL/JSON JSON_VALUE() does not conform to ISO/IEC 9075-2:2023(E) 6.34 <JSON value constructor>
Previous Message Tatsuo Ishii 2026-04-16 04:53:42 Re: BUG #19354: JOHAB rejects valid byte sequences