Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Fix: no need to do the qual-clause twice #396

Merged
merged 1 commit into from
Aug 19, 2024

Conversation

jiaqizho
Copy link
Contributor

fix #ISSUE_Number


Change logs

CBDB already support pushdown qual-clause. If current qual-clause have been process in access method, Then ExprState inside PlanState should reset to NULL, In this time, ExecScan should not exec it again.

Why are the changes needed?

Does this PR introduce any user-facing change?

How was this patch tested?

Contributor's Checklist

Here are some reminders and checklists before/when submitting your pull request, please check them:

  • Make sure your Pull Request has a clear title and commit message. You can take git-commit template as a reference.
  • Sign the Contributor License Agreement as prompted for your first-time contribution(One-time setup).
  • Learn the coding contribution guide, including our code conventions, workflow and more.
  • List your communication in the GitHub Issues or Discussions (if has or needed).
  • Document changes.
  • Add tests for the change
  • Pass make installcheck
  • Pass make -C src/test installcheck-cbdb-parallel
  • Feel free to request cloudberrydb/dev team for review and approval when your PR is ready🥳

@my-ship-it
Copy link
Contributor

This is my plan for heap table:

postgres=# explain analyze verbose select * from int8_tbl where q1 in (select c1 from inner_text);
                                                                  QUERY PLAN
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 Gather Motion 3:1  (slice1; segments: 3)  (cost=0.00..1.05 rows=2 width=16) (actual time=2.100..2.103 rows=2 loops=1)
   Output: int8_tbl.q1, int8_tbl.q2
   ->  Seq Scan on public.int8_tbl  (cost=0.00..1.02 rows=1 width=16) (actual time=1.257..1.262 rows=2 loops=1)
         Output: int8_tbl.q1, int8_tbl.q2
         Filter: (hashed SubPlan 1)
         SubPlan 1
           ->  Broadcast Motion 3:3  (slice2; segments: 3)  (cost=0.00..150.00 rows=11600 width=32) (actual time=1.031..1.033 rows=2 loops=1)
                 Output: inner_text.c1
                 ->  Seq Scan on public.inner_text  (cost=0.00..150.00 rows=11600 width=32) (actual time=0.098..0.099 rows=1 loops=1)
                       Output: inner_text.c1
 Settings: optimizer = 'off'
 Planning Time: 0.471 ms
   (slice0)    Executor memory: 117K bytes.
   (slice1)    Executor memory: 316K bytes avg x 3x(0) workers, 414K bytes max (seg0).
   (slice2)    Executor memory: 111K bytes avg x 3x(0) workers, 111K bytes max (seg0).
 Memory used:  128000kB
 Optimizer: Postgres query optimizer
 Execution Time: 2.809 ms

@my-ship-it
Copy link
Contributor

So, should we handle hash Subplan correctly in Pax?

@jiaqizho jiaqizho changed the title Fix: no need to do the qual-clause twice [DNM]Fix: no need to do the qual-clause twice Mar 14, 2024
Copy link
Contributor

@gfphoenix78 gfphoenix78 left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

LGTM

@jiaqizho jiaqizho changed the title [DNM]Fix: no need to do the qual-clause twice Fix: no need to do the qual-clause twice Aug 14, 2024
@jiaqizho jiaqizho force-pushed the fix-pushdown-qual-clause branch from 8adcd8f to 8d136ac Compare August 16, 2024 03:13
@my-ship-it my-ship-it merged commit 4b7f9d2 into apache:main Aug 19, 2024
11 checks passed
@jiaqizho jiaqizho deleted the fix-pushdown-qual-clause branch August 20, 2024 03:20
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

4 participants