Re: why subplan is 10x faster then function?

2017-09-30 23:23 GMT+02:00 Pavel Stehule <pavel(dot)stehule(at)gmail(dot)com>:

> Hi
>
> I have some strange slow queries based on usage "view" functions
>
> one function looks like this:
>
> CREATE OR REPLACE FUNCTION ides_funcs.najdatsplt_cislo_exekuce(mid_najdatsplt
> bigint)
> RETURNS character varying
> LANGUAGE sql
> STABLE
> AS $function$
> select CISLOEXEKUCE
> from najzalobpr MT, najvzallok A1,
> NAJZALOBST A2, NAJZALOBCE A3 where
> MT.ID_NAJVZALLOK= A1.ID_NAJVZALLOK AND
> A1.ID_NAJZALOBST=A2.ID_NAJZALOBST AND
> A2.ID_NAJZALOBCE= A3.ID_NAJZALOBCE AND
> MT.ID_NAJDATSPLT = mID_NAJDATSPLT LIMIT 1;
> $function$ cost 20
> ;
>
> I know so using this kind of functions is not good idea - it is customer
> old code generated from Oracle. I had idea about possible planner issues.
> But this is a executor issue.
>
> when this function is evaluated as function, then execution needs about 46
> sec
>
> -> Nested Loop Left Join (cost=0.71..780360.31 rows=589657
> width=2700) (actual time=47796.588..47796.588 rows=0 loops=1)
> -> Nested Loop (cost=0.29..492947.20 rows=589657 width=2559)
> (actual time=47796.587..47796.587 rows=0 loops=1)
> -> Seq Scan on najdatsplt mt (cost=0.00..124359.24
> rows=1106096 width=1013) (actual time=47796.587..47796.587 rows=0 loops=1)
> Filter: (najdatsplt_cislo_exekuce(id_najdatsplt) IS
> NOT NULL)
> Rows Removed by Filter: 1111654
>
> When I use correlated subquery, then
>
> -> Nested Loop (cost=0.29..19876820.11 rows=589657 width=2559) (actual
> time=3404.154..3404.154 rows=0 loops=1)
> -> Seq Scan on najdatsplt mt (cost=0.00..19508232.15 rows=1106096
> width=1013) (actual time=3404.153..3404.153 rows=0 loops=1)
> Filter: ((SubPlan 11) IS NOT NULL)
> Rows Removed by Filter: 1111654
> SubPlan 11
> -> Limit (cost=1.10..17.49 rows=1 width=144) (actual
> time=0.002..0.002 rows=0 loops=1111654)
> -> Nested Loop (cost=1.10..17.49 rows=1 width=144) (actual
> time=0.002..0.002 rows=0 loops=1111654)
> -> Nested Loop (cost=0.83..17.02 rows=1 width=8)
> (actual time=0.002..0.002 rows=0 loops=1111654)
> -> Nested Loop (cost=0.56..16.61 rows=1
> width=8) (actual time=0.002..0.002 rows=0 loops=1111654)
>
> The execution plan is +/- same - the bottleneck is in function execution
>
> Tested with same result on 9.6, 10.
>
> Is known overhead of function execution?
>
>
profile of slow execution looks like

+ 24,71% 24,40% 48235 postmaster [.] SearchCatCache
+ 14,25% 0,00% 0 postmaster [unknown] [.]
0000000000000000
+ 9,76% 9,65% 19071 postmaster [.]
TupleDescInitEntry
+ 3,91% 3,86% 7625 postmaster [.]
ExecAssignScanProjectionInfoWithVarno
+ 3,56% 3,52% 6955 postmaster [.] AllocSetAlloc
+ 2,66% 2,63% 5193 postmaster [.]
FunctionCall2Coll
+ 2,65% 2,62% 5183 postmaster [.]
ResourceArrayRemove
+ 2,42% 2,39% 4719 postmaster [.]
ExecTypeFromTLInternal
+ 2,21% 2,19% 4321 postmaster [.]
DirectFunctionCall1Coll
+ 2,02% 2,00% 3961 postmaster [.]
heap_getsysattr
+ 1,85% 1,82% 3604 postmaster [.]
exprTypmod
+ 1,81% 1,79% 3540 postmaster [.]
ResourceArrayAdd
+ 1,68% 1,66% 3282 postmaster [.]
hash_uint32
+ 1,65% 1,63% 3214 postmaster [.]
hash_search_with_hash_value
+ 1,64% 1,62% 3208 postmaster [.]
CatalogCacheComputeHashValue
+ 1,28% 1,26% 2498 postmaster [.]
MemoryContextAllocZeroAligned
+ 1,25% 1,24% 2446 postmaster [.] palloc0

Any ides why SearchCatCache is called too often?

> Regards
>
> Pavel
>