Re: PassDownLimitBound for ForeignScan/CustomScan - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Jeevan Chalke
Subject Re: PassDownLimitBound for ForeignScan/CustomScan
Date
Msg-id CAM2+6=VBcizzhZB5ryOiTVLALsoh+cqCge55gxDKNW8Gj5A8Bw@mail.gmail.com
Whole thread Raw
In response to PassDownLimitBound for ForeignScan/CustomScan  (Kouhei Kaigai <kaigai@ak.jp.nec.com>)
Responses Re: PassDownLimitBound for ForeignScan/CustomScan
List pgsql-hackers
Hi,

On Mon, Aug 29, 2016 at 7:25 AM, Kouhei Kaigai <kaigai@ak.jp.nec.com> wrote:
Hello,

The attached patch adds an optional callback to support special optimization
if ForeignScan/CustomScan are located under the Limit node in plan-tree.

Our sort node wisely switches the behavior when we can preliminary know
exact number of rows to be produced, because all the Sort node has to
return is the top-k rows when it is located under the Limit node.
It is much lightweight workloads than sorting of entire input rows when
nrows is not small.

In my case, this information is very useful because GPU can complete its
sorting operations mostly on L1-grade memory if we can preliminary know
the top-k value is enough small and fits to size of the fast memory.

Probably, it is also valuable for Fujita-san's case because this information
allows to attach "LIMIT k" clause on the remote query of postgres_fdw.
It will reduce amount of the network traffic and remote CPU consumption
once we got support of sort pushdown. 

One thing we need to pay attention is cost estimation on the planner stage.
In the existing code, only create_ordered_paths() and create_merge_append_path()
considers the limit clause for cost estimation of sorting. They use the
'limit_tuples' of PlannerInfo; we can reference the structure when extension
adds ForeignPath/CustomPath, so I think we don't need a special enhancement
on the planner stage.

 
I believe this hook is gets called at execution time.
So to push LIMIT clause like you said above we should use "limit_tuples" at the time of planning and then use this hook to optimize at runtime, right?

Apart from that, attached patch applies cleanly on latest sources and found no issues with make or with regressions.

However this patch is an infrastructure for any possible optimization when foreign/customscan is under LIMIT.

So look good to me.

I quickly tried adding a hook support in postgres_fdw, and it gets called correctly when we have foreignscan with LIMIT (limit being evaluated on local server).

So code wise no issue. Also add this hook details in documentation.

Thanks
 
Thanks,
--
NEC Business Creation Division / PG-Strom Project
KaiGai Kohei <kaigai@ak.jp.nec.com>



--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers




--
Jeevan B Chalke
Principal Software Engineer, Product Development
EnterpriseDB Corporation
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company

pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Michael Paquier
Date:
Subject: Re: Password identifiers, protocol aging and SCRAM protocol
Next
From: Craig Ringer
Date:
Subject: Re: [PATCH] Transaction traceability - txid_status(bigint)