aboutsummaryrefslogtreecommitdiff
path: root/src/backend/executor/nodeSamplescan.c
Commit message (Collapse)AuthorAge
* Post-feature-freeze pgindent run.Tom Lane2018-04-26
| | | | Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/15719.1523984266@sss.pgh.pa.us
* Allow tupleslots to have a fixed tupledesc, use in executor nodes.Andres Freund2018-02-16
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | The reason for doing so is that it will allow expression evaluation to optimize based on the underlying tupledesc. In particular it will allow to JIT tuple deforming together with the expression itself. For that expression initialization needs to be moved after the relevant slots are initialized - mostly unproblematic, except in the case of nodeWorktablescan.c. After doing so there's no need for ExecAssignResultType() and ExecAssignResultTypeFromTL() anymore, as all former callers have been converted to create a slot with a fixed descriptor. When creating a slot with a fixed descriptor, tts_values/isnull can be allocated together with the main slot, reducing allocation overhead and increasing cache density a bit. Author: Andres Freund Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/20171206093717.vqdxe5icqttpxs3p@alap3.anarazel.de
* Update copyright for 2018Bruce Momjian2018-01-02
| | | | Backpatch-through: certain files through 9.3
* Move ExecProcNode from dispatch to function pointer based model.Andres Freund2017-07-30
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | This allows us to add stack-depth checks the first time an executor node is called, and skip that overhead on following calls. Additionally it yields a nice speedup. While it'd probably have been a good idea to have that check all along, it has become more important after the new expression evaluation framework in b8d7f053c5c2bf2a7e - there's no stack depth check in common paths anymore now. We previously relied on ExecEvalExpr() being executed somewhere. We should move towards that model for further routines, but as this is required for v10, it seems better to only do the necessary (which already is quite large). Author: Andres Freund, Tom Lane Reported-By: Julien Rouhaud Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/22833.1490390175@sss.pgh.pa.us https://postgr.es/m/b0af9eaa-130c-60d0-9e4e-7a135b1e0c76@dalibo.com
* Phase 3 of pgindent updates.Tom Lane2017-06-21
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | Don't move parenthesized lines to the left, even if that means they flow past the right margin. By default, BSD indent lines up statement continuation lines that are within parentheses so that they start just to the right of the preceding left parenthesis. However, traditionally, if that resulted in the continuation line extending to the right of the desired right margin, then indent would push it left just far enough to not overrun the margin, if it could do so without making the continuation line start to the left of the current statement indent. That makes for a weird mix of indentations unless one has been completely rigid about never violating the 80-column limit. This behavior has been pretty universally panned by Postgres developers. Hence, disable it with indent's new -lpl switch, so that parenthesized lines are always lined up with the preceding left paren. This patch is much less interesting than the first round of indent changes, but also bulkier, so I thought it best to separate the effects. Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/E1dAmxK-0006EE-1r@gemulon.postgresql.org Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/30527.1495162840@sss.pgh.pa.us
* Phase 2 of pgindent updates.Tom Lane2017-06-21
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | Change pg_bsd_indent to follow upstream rules for placement of comments to the right of code, and remove pgindent hack that caused comments following #endif to not obey the general rule. Commit e3860ffa4dd0dad0dd9eea4be9cc1412373a8c89 wasn't actually using the published version of pg_bsd_indent, but a hacked-up version that tried to minimize the amount of movement of comments to the right of code. The situation of interest is where such a comment has to be moved to the right of its default placement at column 33 because there's code there. BSD indent has always moved right in units of tab stops in such cases --- but in the previous incarnation, indent was working in 8-space tab stops, while now it knows we use 4-space tabs. So the net result is that in about half the cases, such comments are placed one tab stop left of before. This is better all around: it leaves more room on the line for comment text, and it means that in such cases the comment uniformly starts at the next 4-space tab stop after the code, rather than sometimes one and sometimes two tabs after. Also, ensure that comments following #endif are indented the same as comments following other preprocessor commands such as #else. That inconsistency turns out to have been self-inflicted damage from a poorly-thought-through post-indent "fixup" in pgindent. This patch is much less interesting than the first round of indent changes, but also bulkier, so I thought it best to separate the effects. Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/E1dAmxK-0006EE-1r@gemulon.postgresql.org Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/30527.1495162840@sss.pgh.pa.us
* Faster expression evaluation and targetlist projection.Andres Freund2017-03-25
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | This replaces the old, recursive tree-walk based evaluation, with non-recursive, opcode dispatch based, expression evaluation. Projection is now implemented as part of expression evaluation. This both leads to significant performance improvements, and makes future just-in-time compilation of expressions easier. The speed gains primarily come from: - non-recursive implementation reduces stack usage / overhead - simple sub-expressions are implemented with a single jump, without function calls - sharing some state between different sub-expressions - reduced amount of indirect/hard to predict memory accesses by laying out operation metadata sequentially; including the avoidance of nearly all of the previously used linked lists - more code has been moved to expression initialization, avoiding constant re-checks at evaluation time Future just-in-time compilation (JIT) has become easier, as demonstrated by released patches intended to be merged in a later release, for primarily two reasons: Firstly, due to a stricter split between expression initialization and evaluation, less code has to be handled by the JIT. Secondly, due to the non-recursive nature of the generated "instructions", less performance-critical code-paths can easily be shared between interpreted and compiled evaluation. The new framework allows for significant future optimizations. E.g.: - basic infrastructure for to later reduce the per executor-startup overhead of expression evaluation, by caching state in prepared statements. That'd be helpful in OLTPish scenarios where initialization overhead is measurable. - optimizing the generated "code". A number of proposals for potential work has already been made. - optimizing the interpreter. Similarly a number of proposals have been made here too. The move of logic into the expression initialization step leads to some backward-incompatible changes: - Function permission checks are now done during expression initialization, whereas previously they were done during execution. In edge cases this can lead to errors being raised that previously wouldn't have been, e.g. a NULL array being coerced to a different array type previously didn't perform checks. - The set of domain constraints to be checked, is now evaluated once during expression initialization, previously it was re-built every time a domain check was evaluated. For normal queries this doesn't change much, but e.g. for plpgsql functions, which caches ExprStates, the old set could stick around longer. The behavior around might still change. Author: Andres Freund, with significant changes by Tom Lane, changes by Heikki Linnakangas Reviewed-By: Tom Lane, Heikki Linnakangas Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/20161206034955.bh33paeralxbtluv@alap3.anarazel.de
* Remove obsoleted code relating to targetlist SRF evaluation.Andres Freund2017-01-19
| | | | | | | | | | | | | Since 69f4b9c plain expression evaluation (and thus normal projection) can't return sets of tuples anymore. Thus remove code dealing with that possibility. This will require adjustments in external code using ExecEvalExpr()/ExecProject() - that should neither be hard nor very common. Author: Andres Freund and Tom Lane Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/20160822214023.aaxz5l4igypowyri@alap3.anarazel.de
* Generate fmgr prototypes automaticallyPeter Eisentraut2017-01-17
| | | | | | | | | | | | Gen_fmgrtab.pl creates a new file fmgrprotos.h, which contains prototypes for all functions registered in pg_proc.h. This avoids having to manually maintain these prototypes across a random variety of header files. It also automatically enforces a correct function signature, and since there are warnings about missing prototypes, it will detect functions that are defined but not registered in pg_proc.h (or otherwise used). Reviewed-by: Pavel Stehule <pavel.stehule@gmail.com>
* Update copyright via script for 2017Bruce Momjian2017-01-03
|
* Revert no-op changes to BufferGetPage()Kevin Grittner2016-04-20
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | The reverted changes were intended to force a choice of whether any newly-added BufferGetPage() calls needed to be accompanied by a test of the snapshot age, to support the "snapshot too old" feature. Such an accompanying test is needed in about 7% of the cases, where the page is being used as part of a scan rather than positioning for other purposes (such as DML or vacuuming). The additional effort required for back-patching, and the doubt whether the intended benefit would really be there, have indicated it is best just to rely on developers to do the right thing based on comments and existing usage, as we do with many other conventions. This change should have little or no effect on generated executable code. Motivated by the back-patching pain of Tom Lane and Robert Haas
* Modify BufferGetPage() to prepare for "snapshot too old" featureKevin Grittner2016-04-08
| | | | | | | | | | | This patch is a no-op patch which is intended to reduce the chances of failures of omission once the functional part of the "snapshot too old" patch goes in. It adds parameters for snapshot, relation, and an enum to specify whether the snapshot age check needs to be done for the page at this point. This initial patch passes NULL for the first two new parameters and BGP_NO_SNAPSHOT_TEST for the third. The follow-on patch will change the places where the test needs to be made.
* Update copyright for 2016Bruce Momjian2016-01-02
| | | | Backpatch certain files through 9.1
* Redesign tablesample method API, and do extensive code review.Tom Lane2015-07-25
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | The original implementation of TABLESAMPLE modeled the tablesample method API on index access methods, which wasn't a good choice because, without specialized DDL commands, there's no way to build an extension that can implement a TSM. (Raw inserts into system catalogs are not an acceptable thing to do, because we can't undo them during DROP EXTENSION, nor will pg_upgrade behave sanely.) Instead adopt an API more like procedural language handlers or foreign data wrappers, wherein the only SQL-level support object needed is a single handler function identified by having a special return type. This lets us get rid of the supporting catalog altogether, so that no custom DDL support is needed for the feature. Adjust the API so that it can support non-constant tablesample arguments (the original coding assumed we could evaluate the argument expressions at ExecInitSampleScan time, which is undesirable even if it weren't outright unsafe), and discourage sampling methods from looking at invisible tuples. Make sure that the BERNOULLI and SYSTEM methods are genuinely repeatable within and across queries, as required by the SQL standard, and deal more honestly with methods that can't support that requirement. Make a full code-review pass over the tablesample additions, and fix assorted bugs, omissions, infelicities, and cosmetic issues (such as failure to put the added code stanzas in a consistent ordering). Improve EXPLAIN's output of tablesample plans, too. Back-patch to 9.5 so that we don't have to support the original API in production.
* pgindent run for 9.5Bruce Momjian2015-05-23
|
* TABLESAMPLE, SQL Standard and extensibleSimon Riggs2015-05-15
Add a TABLESAMPLE clause to SELECT statements that allows user to specify random BERNOULLI sampling or block level SYSTEM sampling. Implementation allows for extensible sampling functions to be written, using a standard API. Basic version follows SQLStandard exactly. Usable concrete use cases for the sampling API follow in later commits. Petr Jelinek Reviewed by Michael Paquier and Simon Riggs