Re: [GENERAL] Why hash join cost calculation need reduction
* 高健 (luckyjack...@gmail.com) wrote: [...] > postgres=# explain analyze select * from sales s inner join customers c on > s.cust_id = c.cust_id and c.cust_id =2; [...] > When I use the where condition such as , > > postgresql is clever enough to know it is better to make seqscan and > filter ? I havn't bothered to go look through the code specifics, but what I expect is happening here is that PG realizes that c.cust_id and s.cust_id are the same, and c.cust_id = 2, therefore the statement is equivilant to: explain analyze select * from sales s inner join customers c on s.cust_id = 2 and c.cust_id = 2 and it's not going to try and build a hash to support an equality operation against a constant- there's no point. It can simply do a nested loop with a filter because all it needs to do is find all cases of "sales.cust_id = 2" and all cases of "customers.cust_id = 2" and return the cartesian product of them. Thanks, Stephen signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: [GENERAL] Why hash join cost calculation need reduction
Hello: Thanks for replying! I understand it a little more. And I compared the following statements: First: postgres=# explain analyze select * from sales s inner join customers c on s.cust_id = c.cust_id; QUERY PLAN -- Hash Join (cost=1.07..2.15 rows=3 width=84) (actual time=0.017..0.019 rows=3 loops=1) Hash Cond: (s.cust_id = c.cust_id) -> Seq Scan on sales s (cost=0.00..1.04 rows=4 width=42) (actual time=0.004..0.004 rows=4 loops=1) -> Hash (cost=1.03..1.03 rows=3 width=42) (actual time=0.004..0.004 rows=3 loops=1) Buckets: 1024 Batches: 1 Memory Usage: 1kB -> Seq Scan on customers c (cost=0.00..1.03 rows=3 width=42) (actual time=0.001..0.001 rows=3 loops=1) Total runtime: 0.046 ms (7 rows) Second: postgres=# explain analyze select * from sales s inner join customers c on s.cust_id = c.cust_id and c.cust_id =2; QUERY PLAN Nested Loop (cost=0.00..2.10 rows=1 width=84) (actual time=0.000..0.000 rows=1 loops=1) -> Seq Scan on sales s (cost=0.00..1.05 rows=1 width=42) (actual time=0.000..0.000 rows=1 loops=1) Filter: (cust_id = 2) Rows Removed by Filter: 3 -> Seq Scan on customers c (cost=0.00..1.04 rows=1 width=42) (actual time=0.000..0.000 rows=1 loops=1) Filter: (cust_id = 2) Rows Removed by Filter: 2 Total runtime: 0.000 ms (8 rows) Third: postgres=# explain analyze select * from sales s inner join customers c on s.cust_id = c.cust_id and c.cust_id <4; QUERY PLAN Nested Loop (cost=0.00..2.13 rows=1 width=84) (actual time=0.014..0.018 rows=3 loops=1) Join Filter: (s.cust_id = c.cust_id) Rows Removed by Join Filter: 9 -> Seq Scan on customers c (cost=0.00..1.04 rows=1 width=42) (actual time=0.007..0.007 rows=3 loops=1) Filter: (cust_id < 4) -> Seq Scan on sales s (cost=0.00..1.04 rows=4 width=42) (actual time=0.000..0.000 rows=4 loops=3) Total runtime: 0.038 ms (7 rows) postgres=# The first sql statement and third sql statment really drive the final_cost_hashjoin function to be called. I think For the above third one, cost_qual_eval(&hash_qual_cost, hashclauses, root) is for And cost_qual_eval(&qp_qual_cost, path->jpath.joinrestrictinfo, root) is for I've found the following calling relation: hash_inner_and_outer à try_hashjoin_path à create_hashjoin_path àfinal_cost_hashjoin For the second sql statement , In the hash_inner_and_outer function, the < if ( hashclauses) > condition is false, So there is no chance to try a hashjoin path. That is : When I use the where condition such as , postgresql is clever enough to know it is better to make seqscan and filter ? 2013/6/13 Tom Lane > Stephen Frost writes: > > * 高健 (luckyjack...@gmail.com) wrote: > >> Why the reduction is needed here for cost calculation? > > > cost_qual_eval(&hash_qual_cost, hashclauses, root); > > returns the costs for *just the quals which can be used for the > > hashjoin*, while > > cost_qual_eval(&qp_qual_cost, path->jpath.joinrestrictinfo, root); > > returns the costs for *ALL the quals* > > Right. Note what it says in create_hashjoin_path: > > * 'restrict_clauses' are the RestrictInfo nodes to apply at the join > ... > * 'hashclauses' are the RestrictInfo nodes to use as hash clauses > *(this should be a subset of the restrict_clauses list) > > So the two cost_qual_eval() calls are *both* counting the cost of the > hashclauses, and we have to undo that to get at just the cost of any > additional clauses beside the hash clauses. See the comment about the > usage of qp_qual_cost further down: > > /* > * For each tuple that gets through the hashjoin proper, we charge > * cpu_tuple_cost plus the cost of evaluating additional restriction > * clauses that are to be applied at the join. (This is pessimistic > since > * not all of the quals may get evaluated at each tuple.) > */ > startup_cost += qp_qual_cost.startup; > cpu_per_tuple = cpu_tuple_cost + qp_qual_cost.per_tuple; > run_cost += cpu_per_tuple * hashjointuples; > > regards, tom lane >
Re: [GENERAL] Why hash join cost calculation need reduction
Stephen Frost writes: > * é«å¥ (luckyjack...@gmail.com) wrote: >> Why the reduction is needed here for cost calculation? > cost_qual_eval(&hash_qual_cost, hashclauses, root); > returns the costs for *just the quals which can be used for the > hashjoin*, while > cost_qual_eval(&qp_qual_cost, path->jpath.joinrestrictinfo, root); > returns the costs for *ALL the quals* Right. Note what it says in create_hashjoin_path: * 'restrict_clauses' are the RestrictInfo nodes to apply at the join ... * 'hashclauses' are the RestrictInfo nodes to use as hash clauses *(this should be a subset of the restrict_clauses list) So the two cost_qual_eval() calls are *both* counting the cost of the hashclauses, and we have to undo that to get at just the cost of any additional clauses beside the hash clauses. See the comment about the usage of qp_qual_cost further down: /* * For each tuple that gets through the hashjoin proper, we charge * cpu_tuple_cost plus the cost of evaluating additional restriction * clauses that are to be applied at the join. (This is pessimistic since * not all of the quals may get evaluated at each tuple.) */ startup_cost += qp_qual_cost.startup; cpu_per_tuple = cpu_tuple_cost + qp_qual_cost.per_tuple; run_cost += cpu_per_tuple * hashjointuples; regards, tom lane -- Sent via pgsql-general mailing list (pgsql-general@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-general
Re: [GENERAL] Why hash join cost calculation need reduction
Greetings, * 高健 (luckyjack...@gmail.com) wrote: > And I found the following function of PostgreSQL9.2.1. The hash join cost > is calculated. > > But what confused me is a reuction calculation: > > qp_qual_cost.per_tuple -= hash_qual_cost.per_tuple; > > My question is: > > Why the reduction is needed here for cost calculation? cost_qual_eval(&hash_qual_cost, hashclauses, root); returns the costs for *just the quals which can be used for the hashjoin*, while cost_qual_eval(&qp_qual_cost, path->jpath.joinrestrictinfo, root); returns the costs for *ALL the quals* qp_qual_cost.startup -= hash_qual_cost.startup; and qp_qual_cost.per_tuple -= hash_qual_cost.per_tuple; extract the cost attributed to the quals used in the hashjoin from the cost of the other quals in the overall expression. The reason that we do this is because we're going to use a hashjoin-specific costing for the qual costs later on in final_cost_hashjoin: startup_cost += hash_qual_cost.startup; run_cost += hash_qual_cost.per_tuple * outer_path_rows * clamp_row_est(inner_path_rows * innerbucketsize) * 0.5; if we didn't do that, we'd end up double-counting those costs. > In fact , For my sql statement: > > > > When I set cpu_operator_cost to 0.0025, > > qp_qual_cost.per_tuple and hash_qual_cost.per_tuple are all 0.0025. > > So after reduction, qp_qual_cost.per_tuple is set to 0. Yes, because ALL the quals involved in your statement are quals being used for the hashjoin- and those costs are calculated later on, as I illustrated above. > I think that per_tuple cost can not be omitted here. The per-tuple cost isn't omitted, it's added in later based on the expected costs for doing those per-tuple operations for building and using the hash table. Thanks, Stephen signature.asc Description: Digital signature
