Re: Suspicious call of initial_cost_hashjoin()

From: Thomas Munro <thomas(dot)munro(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>
To: Antonin Houska <ah(at)cybertec(dot)at>
Cc: Pg Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: Suspicious call of initial_cost_hashjoin()
Date: 2017-12-22 11:13:37
Message-ID: CAEepm=3sB=BXFGxwhUKVQED=aF61S95NS05ek+be1c6P5NFDCQ@mail.gmail.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On Fri, Dec 22, 2017 at 10:45 PM, Antonin Houska <ah(at)cybertec(dot)at> wrote:
> try_partial_hashjoin_path() passes constant true to for the parallel_hash
> argument of initial_cost_hashjoin(). Shouldn't it instead pass the
> parallel_hash argument that it receives?

Thanks. Yeah. When initial_cost_hashjoin() calls
get_parallel_divisor() on a non-partial inner path I think it would
return 1.0, so no damage was done there, but when
ExecChooseHashTableSize() receives try_combined_work_mem == true it
might underestimate the number of batches required for a partial hash
join without parallel hash, because it would incorrectly assume that a
single batch join could use the combined work_mem budget. This was
quite well hidden because ExecHashTableCreate() calls
ExecChooseHashTableSize() again (rather than reusing the results from
planning time), so the bad nbatch estimate doesn't show up anywhere.

--
Thomas Munro
http://www.enterprisedb.com

Attachment Content-Type Size
fix.patch application/octet-stream 1.3 KB

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Dilip Kumar 2017-12-22 11:28:47 Re: After dropping the rule - Not able to insert / server crash (one time ONLY)
Previous Message Ildar Musin 2017-12-22 10:54:57 Re: General purpose hashing func in pgbench