aboutsummaryrefslogtreecommitdiff
path: root/src/backend/executor/nodeValuesscan.c
Commit message (Collapse)AuthorAge
* Update copyright for 2025Bruce Momjian2025-01-01
| | | | Backpatch-through: 13
* Introduce CompactAttribute array in TupleDesc, take 2David Rowley2024-12-20
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | The new compact_attrs array stores a few select fields from FormData_pg_attribute in a more compact way, using only 16 bytes per column instead of the 104 bytes that FormData_pg_attribute uses. Using CompactAttribute allows performance-critical operations such as tuple deformation to be performed without looking at the FormData_pg_attribute element in TupleDesc which means fewer cacheline accesses. For some workloads, tuple deformation can be the most CPU intensive part of processing the query. Some testing with 16 columns on a table where the first column is variable length showed around a 10% increase in transactions per second for an OLAP type query performing aggregation on the 16th column. However, in certain cases, the increases were much higher, up to ~25% on one AMD Zen4 machine. This also makes pg_attribute.attcacheoff redundant. A follow-on commit will remove it, thus shrinking the FormData_pg_attribute struct by 4 bytes. Author: David Rowley Reviewed-by: Andres Freund, Victor Yegorov Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/CAApHDvrBztXP3yx=NKNmo3xwFAFhEdyPnvrDg3=M0RhDs+4vYw@mail.gmail.com
* Fix an assortment of typosDavid Rowley2024-05-04
| | | | | Author: Alexander Lakhin Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/ae9f2fcb-4b24-5bb0-4240-efbbbd944ca1@gmail.com
* Update copyright for 2024Bruce Momjian2024-01-03
| | | | | | | | Reported-by: Michael Paquier Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/ZZKTDPxBBMt3C0J9@paquier.xyz Backpatch-through: 12
* Remove obsolete executor cleanup codeAmit Langote2023-09-28
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | This commit removes unnecessary ExecExprFreeContext() calls in ExecEnd* routines because the actual cleanup is managed by FreeExecutorState(). With no callers remaining for ExecExprFreeContext(), this commit also removes the function. This commit also drops redundant ExecClearTuple() calls, because ExecResetTupleTable() in ExecEndPlan() already takes care of resetting and dropping all TupleTableSlots initialized with ExecInitScanTupleSlot() and ExecInitExtraTupleSlot(). After these modifications, the ExecEnd*() routines for ValuesScan, NamedTuplestoreScan, and WorkTableScan became redundant. So, this commit removes them. Reviewed-by: Robert Haas Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/CA+HiwqFGkMSge6TgC9KQzde0ohpAycLQuV7ooitEEpbKB0O_mg@mail.gmail.com
* Update copyright for 2023Bruce Momjian2023-01-02
| | | | Backpatch-through: 11
* Update copyright for 2022Bruce Momjian2022-01-07
| | | | Backpatch-through: 10
* Use l*_node() family of functions where appropriatePeter Eisentraut2021-07-19
| | | | | | | Instead of castNode(…, lfoo(…)) Author: Dagfinn Ilmari Mannsåker <ilmari@ilmari.org> Discussion: https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/flat/87eecahraj.fsf@wibble.ilmari.org
* Update copyright for 2021Bruce Momjian2021-01-02
| | | | Backpatch-through: 9.5
* Repair more failures with SubPlans in multi-row VALUES lists.Tom Lane2020-01-17
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | Commit 9b63c13f0 turns out to have been fundamentally misguided: the parent node's subPlan list is by no means the only way in which a child SubPlan node can be hooked into the outer execution state. As shown in bug #16213 from Matt Jibson, we can also get short-lived tuple table slots added to the outer es_tupleTable list. At this point I have little faith that there aren't other possible connections as well; the long time it took to notice this problem shows that this isn't a heavily-exercised situation. Therefore, revert that fix, returning to the coding that passed a NULL parent plan pointer down to the transiently-built subexpressions. That gives us a pretty good guarantee that they won't hook into the outer executor state in any way. But then we need some other solution to make SubPlans work. Adopt the solution speculated about in the previous commit's log message: do expression initialization at plan startup for just those VALUES rows containing SubPlans, abandoning the goal of reclaiming memory intra-query for those rows. In practice it seems unlikely that queries containing a vast number of VALUES rows would be using SubPlans in them, so this should not give up much. (BTW, this test case also refutes my claim in connection with the prior commit that the issue only arises with use of LATERAL. That was just wrong: some variants of SubLink always produce SubPlans.) As with previous patch, back-patch to all supported branches. Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/16213-871ac3bc208ecf23@postgresql.org
* Update copyrights for 2020Bruce Momjian2020-01-01
| | | | Backpatch-through: update all files in master, backpatch legal files through 9.4
* Update copyright for 2019Bruce Momjian2019-01-02
| | | | Backpatch-through: certain files through 9.4
* Introduce notion of different types of slots (without implementing them).Andres Freund2018-11-15
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | Upcoming work intends to allow pluggable ways to introduce new ways of storing table data. Accessing those table access methods from the executor requires TupleTableSlots to be carry tuples in the native format of such storage methods; otherwise there'll be a significant conversion overhead. Different access methods will require different data to store tuples efficiently (just like virtual, minimal, heap already require fields in TupleTableSlot). To allow that without requiring additional pointer indirections, we want to have different structs (embedding TupleTableSlot) for different types of slots. Thus different types of slots are needed, which requires adapting creators of slots. The slot that most efficiently can represent a type of tuple in an executor node will often depend on the type of slot a child node uses. Therefore we need to track the type of slot is returned by nodes, so parent slots can create slots based on that. Relatedly, JIT compilation of tuple deforming needs to know which type of slot a certain expression refers to, so it can create an appropriate deforming function for the type of tuple in the slot. But not all nodes will only return one type of slot, e.g. an append node will potentially return different types of slots for each of its subplans. Therefore add function that allows to query the type of a node's result slot, and whether it'll always be the same type (whether it's fixed). This can be queried using ExecGetResultSlotOps(). The scan, result, inner, outer type of slots are automatically inferred from ExecInitScanTupleSlot(), ExecInitResultSlot(), left/right subtrees respectively. If that's not correct for a node, that can be overwritten using new fields in PlanState. This commit does not introduce the actually abstracted implementation of different kind of TupleTableSlots, that will be left for a followup commit. The different types of slots introduced will, for now, still use the same backing implementation. While this already partially invalidates the big comment in tuptable.h, it seems to make more sense to update it later, when the different TupleTableSlot implementations actually exist. Author: Ashutosh Bapat and Andres Freund, with changes by Amit Khandekar Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/20181105210039.hh4vvi4vwoq5ba2q@alap3.anarazel.de
* Don't require return slots for nodes without projection.Andres Freund2018-11-09
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | In a lot of nodes the return slot is not required. That can either be because the node doesn't do any projection (say an Append node), or because the node does perform projections but the projection is optimized away because the projection would yield an identical row. Slots aren't that small, especially for wide rows, so it's worthwhile to avoid creating them. It's not possible to just skip creating the slot - it's currently used to determine the tuple descriptor returned by ExecGetResultType(). So separate the determination of the result type from the slot creation. The work previously done internally ExecInitResultTupleSlotTL() can now also be done separately with ExecInitResultTypeTL() and ExecInitResultSlot(). That way nodes that aren't guaranteed to need a result slot, can use ExecInitResultTypeTL() to determine the result type of the node, and ExecAssignScanProjectionInfo() (via ExecConditionalAssignProjectionInfo()) determines that a result slot is needed, it is created with ExecInitResultSlot(). Besides the advantage of avoiding to create slots that then are unused, this is necessary preparation for later patches around tuple table slot abstraction. In particular separating the return descriptor and slot is a prerequisite to allow JITing of tuple deforming with knowledge of the underlying tuple format, and to avoid unnecessarily creating JITed tuple deforming for virtual slots. This commit removes a redundant argument from ExecInitResultTupleSlotTL(). While this commit touches a lot of the relevant lines anyway, it'd normally still not worthwhile to cause breakage, except that aforementioned later commits will touch *all* ExecInitResultTupleSlotTL() callers anyway (but fits worse thematically). Author: Andres Freund Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/20181105210039.hh4vvi4vwoq5ba2q@alap3.anarazel.de
* Post-feature-freeze pgindent run.Tom Lane2018-04-26
| | | | Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/15719.1523984266@sss.pgh.pa.us
* Add expression compilation support to LLVM JIT provider.Andres Freund2018-03-22
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | In addition to the interpretation of expressions (which back evaluation of WHERE clauses, target list projection, aggregates transition values etc) support compiling expressions to native code, using the infrastructure added in earlier commits. To avoid duplicating a lot of code, only support emitting code for cases that are likely to be performance critical. For expression steps that aren't deemed that, use the existing interpreter. The generated code isn't great - some architectural changes are required to address that. But this already yields a significant speedup for some analytics queries, particularly with WHERE clauses filtering a lot, or computing multiple aggregates. Author: Andres Freund Tested-By: Thomas Munro Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/20170901064131.tazjxwus3k2w3ybh@alap3.anarazel.de Disable JITing for VALUES() nodes. VALUES() nodes are only ever executed once. This is primarily helpful for debugging, when forcing JITing even for cheap queries. Author: Andres Freund Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/20170901064131.tazjxwus3k2w3ybh@alap3.anarazel.de
* 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
* Repair failure with SubPlans in multi-row VALUES lists.Tom Lane2017-11-25
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | When nodeValuesscan.c was written, it was impossible to have a SubPlan in VALUES --- any sub-SELECT there would have to be uncorrelated and thereby would produce an InitPlan instead. We therefore took a shortcut in the logic that throws away a ValuesScan's per-row expression evaluation data structures. This was broken by the introduction of LATERAL however; a sub-SELECT containing a lateral reference produces a correlated SubPlan. The cleanest fix for this would be to give up the optimization of discarding the expression eval state. But that still seems pretty unappetizing for long VALUES lists. It seems to work to just prevent the subexpressions from hooking into the ValuesScan node's subPlan list, so let's do that and see how well it works. (If this breaks, due to additional connections between the subexpressions and the outer query structures, we might consider compromises like throwing away data only for VALUES rows not containing SubPlans.) Per bug #14924 from Christian Duta. Back-patch to 9.3 where LATERAL was introduced. Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/20171124120836.1463.5310@wrigleys.postgresql.org
* Change tupledesc->attrs[n] to TupleDescAttr(tupledesc, n).Andres Freund2017-08-20
| | | | | | | | | | | This is a mechanical change in preparation for a later commit that will change the layout of TupleDesc. Introducing a macro to abstract the details of where attributes are stored will allow us to change that in separate step and revise it in future. Author: Thomas Munro, editorialized by Andres Freund Reviewed-By: Andres Freund Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/CAEepm=0ZtQ-SpsgCyzzYpsXS6e=kZWqk3g5Ygn3MDV7A8dabUA@mail.gmail.com
* 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
* 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
* Update copyright via script for 2017Bruce Momjian2017-01-03
|
* Mark read/write expanded values as read-only in ValuesNext(), too.Tom Lane2016-06-03
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | Further thought about bug #14174 motivated me to try the case of a R/W datum being returned from a VALUES list, and sure enough it was broken. Fix that. Also add a regression test case exercising the same scenario for FunctionScan. That's not broken right now, because the function's result will get shoved into a tuplestore between generation and use; but it could easily become broken whenever we get around to optimizing FunctionScan better. There don't seem to be any other places where we put the result of expression evaluation into a virtual tuple slot that could then be the source for Vars of further expression evaluation, so I think this is the end of this bug.
* Update copyright for 2016Bruce Momjian2016-01-02
| | | | Backpatch certain files through 9.1
* Update copyright for 2015Bruce Momjian2015-01-06
| | | | Backpatch certain files through 9.0
* Remove dead code supporting mark/restore in SeqScan, TidScan, ValuesScan.Tom Lane2014-11-20
| | | | | | | | | | | | There seems no prospect that any of this will ever be useful, and indeed it's questionable whether some of it would work if it ever got called; it's certainly not been exercised in a very long time, if ever. So let's get rid of it, and make the comments about mark/restore in execAmi.c less wishy-washy. The mark/restore support for Result nodes is also currently dead code, but that's due to planner limitations not because it's impossible that it could be useful. So I left it in.
* Ensure that RowExprs and whole-row Vars produce the expected column names.Tom Lane2014-11-10
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | At one time it wasn't terribly important what column names were associated with the fields of a composite Datum, but since the introduction of operations like row_to_json(), it's important that looking up the rowtype ID embedded in the Datum returns the column names that users would expect. That did not work terribly well before this patch: you could get the column names of the underlying table, or column aliases from any level of the query, depending on minor details of the plan tree. You could even get totally empty field names, which is disastrous for cases like row_to_json(). To fix this for whole-row Vars, look to the RTE referenced by the Var, and make sure its column aliases are applied to the rowtype associated with the result Datums. This is a tad scary because we might have to return a transient RECORD type even though the Var is declared as having some named rowtype. In principle it should be all right because the record type will still be physically compatible with the named rowtype; but I had to weaken one Assert in ExecEvalConvertRowtype, and there might be third-party code containing similar assumptions. Similarly, RowExprs have to be willing to override the column names coming from a named composite result type and produce a RECORD when the column aliases visible at the site of the RowExpr differ from the underlying table's column names. In passing, revert the decision made in commit 398f70ec070fe601 to add an alias-list argument to ExecTypeFromExprList: better to provide that functionality in a separate function. This also reverts most of the code changes in d68581483564ec0f, which we don't need because we're no longer depending on the tupdesc found in the child plan node's result slot to be blessed. Back-patch to 9.4, but not earlier, since this solution changes the results in some cases that users might not have realized were buggy. We'll apply a more restricted form of this patch in older branches.
* pgindent run for 9.4Bruce Momjian2014-05-06
| | | | | This includes removing tabs after periods in C comments, which was applied to back branches, so this change should not effect backpatching.
* Update copyright for 2014Bruce Momjian2014-01-07
| | | | | Update all files in head, and files COPYRIGHT and legal.sgml in all back branches.
* Update copyrights for 2013Bruce Momjian2013-01-01
| | | | | Fully update git head, and update back branches in ./COPYRIGHT and legal.sgml files.
* Preserve column names in the execution-time tupledesc for a RowExpr.Tom Lane2012-02-14
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | The hstore and json datatypes both have record-conversion functions that pay attention to column names in the composite values they're handed. We used to not worry about inserting correct field names into tuple descriptors generated at runtime, but given these examples it seems useful to do so. Observe the nicer-looking results in the regression tests whose results changed. catversion bump because there is a subtle change in requirements for stored rule parsetrees: RowExprs from ROW() constructs now have to include field names. Andrew Dunstan and Tom Lane
* Update copyright notices for year 2012.Bruce Momjian2012-01-01
|
* Remove unnecessary #include references, per pgrminclude script.Bruce Momjian2011-09-01
|
* Stamp copyrights for year 2011.Bruce Momjian2011-01-01
|
* Remove cvs keywords from all files.Magnus Hagander2010-09-20
|
* Make NestLoop plan nodes pass outer-relation variables into their innerTom Lane2010-07-12
| | | | | | | | | | | | relation using the general PARAM_EXEC executor parameter mechanism, rather than the ad-hoc kluge of passing the outer tuple down through ExecReScan. The previous method was hard to understand and could never be extended to handle parameters coming from multiple join levels. This patch doesn't change the set of possible plans nor have any significant performance effect, but it's necessary infrastructure for future generalization of the concept of an inner indexscan plan. ExecReScan's second parameter is now unused, so it's removed.
* Update copyright for the year 2010.Bruce Momjian2010-01-02
|
* Re-implement EvalPlanQual processing to improve its performance and eliminateTom Lane2009-10-26
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | a lot of strange behaviors that occurred in join cases. We now identify the "current" row for every joined relation in UPDATE, DELETE, and SELECT FOR UPDATE/SHARE queries. If an EvalPlanQual recheck is necessary, we jam the appropriate row into each scan node in the rechecking plan, forcing it to emit only that one row. The former behavior could rescan the whole of each joined relation for each recheck, which was terrible for performance, and what's much worse could result in duplicated output tuples. Also, the original implementation of EvalPlanQual could not re-use the recheck execution tree --- it had to go through a full executor init and shutdown for every row to be tested. To avoid this overhead, I've associated a special runtime Param with each LockRows or ModifyTable plan node, and arranged to make every scan node below such a node depend on that Param. Thus, by signaling a change in that Param, the EPQ machinery can just rescan the already-built test plan. This patch also adds a prohibition on set-returning functions in the targetlist of SELECT FOR UPDATE/SHARE. This is needed to avoid the duplicate-output-tuple problem. It seems fairly reasonable since the other restrictions on SELECT FOR UPDATE are meant to ensure that there is a unique correspondence between source tuples and result tuples, which an output SRF destroys as much as anything else does.
* Remove no-longer-needed ExecCountSlots infrastructure.Tom Lane2009-09-27
|
* Update copyright for 2009.Bruce Momjian2009-01-01
|
* Update copyrights in source tree to 2008.Bruce Momjian2008-01-01
|
* Turn the rangetable used by the executor into a flat list, and avoid storingTom Lane2007-02-22
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | useless substructure for its RangeTblEntry nodes. (I chose to keep using the same struct node type and just zero out the link fields for unneeded info, rather than making a separate ExecRangeTblEntry type --- it seemed too fragile to have two different rangetable representations.) Along the way, put subplans into a list in the toplevel PlannedStmt node, and have SubPlan nodes refer to them by list index instead of direct pointers. Vadim wanted to do that years ago, but I never understood what he was on about until now. It makes things a *whole* lot more robust, because we can stop worrying about duplicate processing of subplans during expression tree traversals. That's been a constant source of bugs, and it's finally gone. There are some consequent simplifications yet to be made, like not using a separate EState for subplans in the executor, but I'll tackle that later.
* Put function expressions and values lists into FunctionScan and ValuesScanTom Lane2007-02-19
| | | | | | plan nodes, so that the executor does not need to get these items from the range table at runtime. This will avoid needing to include these fields in the compact range table I'm expecting to make the executor use.
* Update CVS HEAD for 2007 copyright. Back branches are typically notBruce Momjian2007-01-05
| | | | back-stamped for this.
* Repair bug #2839: the various ExecReScan functions need to resetTom Lane2006-12-26
| | | | | | | | | ps_TupFromTlist in plan nodes that make use of it. This was being done correctly in join nodes and Result nodes but not in any relation-scan nodes. Bug would lead to bogus results if a set-returning function appeared in the targetlist of a subquery that could be rescanned after partial execution, for example a subquery within EXISTS(). Bug has been around forever :-( ... surprising it wasn't reported before.
* pgindent run for 8.2.Bruce Momjian2006-10-04
|
* Arrange for ValuesScan to keep per-sublist expression eval state in aTom Lane2006-08-02
| | | | | | | temporary context that can be reset when advancing to the next sublist. This is faster and more thorough at recovering space than the previous method; moreover it will do the right thing if something in the sublist tries to register an expression context callback.
* Add support for multi-row VALUES clauses as part of INSERT statementsJoe Conway2006-08-02
(e.g. "INSERT ... VALUES (...), (...), ...") and elsewhere as allowed by the spec. (e.g. similar to a FROM clause subselect). initdb required. Joe Conway and Tom Lane.