Multi-row execution already uses sequential execution. When shards
are local, using local execution is profitable as it avoids
an extra connection establishment to the local node.
* Fix incorrect join related fields
Ruleutils expect to give the original index of join columns hence we
should consider the dropped columns while setting the fields in
SetJoinRelatedFieldsCompat.
* add some more tests for joins
* Move tests to join.sql and create a utility function
In #3901 the "Data received from worker(s)" sections were added to EXPLAIN
ANALYZE. After merging @pykello posted some review comments. This addresses
those comments as well as fixing a other issues that I found while addressing
them. The things this does:
1. Fix `EXPLAIN ANALYZE EXECUTE p1` to not increase received data on every
execution
2. Fix `EXPLAIN ANALYZE EXECUTE p1(1)` to not return 0 bytes as received data
allways.
3. Move `EXPLAIN ANALYZE` specific logic to `multi_explain.c` from
`adaptive_executor.c`
4. Change naming of new explain sections to `Tuple data received from node(s)`.
Firstly because a task can reference the coordinator too, so "worker(s)" was
incorrect. Secondly to indicate that this is tuple data and not all network
traffic that was performed.
5. Rename `totalReceivedData` in our codebase to `totalReceivedTupleData` to
make it clearer that it's a tuple data counter, not all network traffic.
6. Actually add `binary_protocol` test to `multi_schedule` (woops)
7. Fix a randomly failing test in `local_shard_execution.sql`.
Sadly this does not actually work yet for binary protocol data, because
when doing EXPLAIN ANALYZE we send two commands at the same time. This
means we cannot use `SendRemoteCommandParams`, and thus cannot use the
binary protocol. This can still be useful though when using the text
protocol, to find out that a lot of data is being sent.
Physical planner doesn't support parameters. If the parameters have already
been resolved when the physical planner handling the queries, mark it.
The reason is that the executor is unaware of this, and sends the parameters
along with the worker queries, which fails for composite types.
(See `DissuadePlannerFromUsingPlan()` for the details of paramater resolving)
* use local executon when in a transaction block
When we are inside a transaction block, there could be other methods
that need local execution, therefore we will use local execution in a
transaction block.
* update test outputs with transaction block local execution
* add a test to verify we dont leak intermediate schemas
We can use local copy in INSERT..SELECT, so the check that disables
local execution is removed.
Also a test for local copy where the data size >
LOCAL_COPY_FLUSH_THRESHOLD is added.
use local execution with insert..select
* reimplement ExecuteUtilityTaskListWithoutResults for local utility command execution
* introduce new functions for local execution of utility commands
* change ErrorIfTransactionAccessedPlacementsLocally logic for local utility command execution
* enable local execution for TRUNCATE command on distributed & reference tables
* update existing tests for local utility command execution
* enable local execution for DDL commands on distributed & reference tables
* enable local execution for DROP command on distributed & reference tables
* add normalization rules for cascaded commands
* add new tests for local utility command execution
There are 2 problems with our early exit strategy that this commit fixes:
1- When we decide that a subplan results are sent to all worker nodes,
we used to skip traversing the whole distributed plan, instead of
skipping only the subplan.
2- We used to consider all available nodes in the cluster (secondaries
and inactive nodes as well as active primaries) when deciding on early
exit strategy. This resulted in failures to early exit when there are
secondaries or inactive nodes.
Deparsing and parsing a query can be heavy on CPU. When locally executing
the query we don't need to do this in theory most of the time.
This PR is the first step in allowing to skip deparsing and parsing
the query in these cases, by lazily creating the query string and
storing the query in the task. Future commits will make use of this and
not deparse and parse the query anymore, but use the one from the task
directly.
It looks like the logic to prevent RETURNING in reference tables to
have duplicate entries that comes from local and remote executions
leads to missing some tuples for distributed tables.
With this PR, we're ensuring to kick in the logic for reference tables
only.
See #3125 for details on each item.
* Remove real-time/router executor tests-1
These are the ones which doesn't have '_%d' in the test
output files.
* Remove real-time/router executor tests-2
These are the ones which has in the test
output files.
* Move the tests outputs to correct place
* Make sure that single shard commits use 2PC on adaptive executor
It looks like we've messed the tests in #2891. Fixing back.
* Use adaptive executor for all router queries
This becomes important because when task-tracker is picked, we
used to pick router executor, which doesn't make sense.
* Remove explicit references to real-time/router executors in the tests
* JobExecutorType never picks real-time/router executors
* Make sure to go incremental in test output numbers
* Even users cannot pick real-time anymore
* Do not use real-time/router custom scans
* Get rid of unnecessary normalizations
* Reflect unneeded normalizations
* Get rid of unnecessary test output file
/*
* local_executor.c
*
* The scope of the local execution is locally executing the queries on the
* shards. In other words, local execution does not deal with any local tables
* that are not shards on the node that the query is being executed. In that sense,
* the local executor is only triggered if the node has both the metadata and the
* shards (e.g., only Citus MX worker nodes).
*
* The goal of the local execution is to skip the unnecessary network round-trip
* happening on the node itself. Instead, identify the locally executable tasks and
* simply call PostgreSQL's planner and executor.
*
* The local executor is an extension of the adaptive executor. So, the executor uses
* adaptive executor's custom scan nodes.
*
* One thing to note that Citus MX is only supported with replication factor = 1, so
* keep that in mind while continuing the comments below.
*
* On the high level, there are 3 slightly different ways of utilizing local execution:
*
* (1) Execution of local single shard queries of a distributed table
*
* This is the simplest case. The executor kicks at the start of the adaptive
* executor, and since the query is only a single task the execution finishes
* without going to the network at all.
*
* Even if there is a transaction block (or recursively planned CTEs), as long
* as the queries hit the shards on the same, the local execution will kick in.
*
* (2) Execution of local single queries and remote multi-shard queries
*
* The rule is simple. If a transaction block starts with a local query execution,
* all the other queries in the same transaction block that touch any local shard
* have to use the local execution. Although this sounds restrictive, we prefer to
* implement in this way, otherwise we'd end-up with as complex scenarious as we
* have in the connection managements due to foreign keys.
*
* See the following example:
* BEGIN;
* -- assume that the query is executed locally
* SELECT count(*) FROM test WHERE key = 1;
*
* -- at this point, all the shards that reside on the
* -- node is executed locally one-by-one. After those finishes
* -- the remaining tasks are handled by adaptive executor
* SELECT count(*) FROM test;
*
*
* (3) Modifications of reference tables
*
* Modifications to reference tables have to be executed on all nodes. So, after the
* local execution, the adaptive executor keeps continuing the execution on the other
* nodes.
*
* Note that for read-only queries, after the local execution, there is no need to
* kick in adaptive executor.
*
* There are also few limitations/trade-offs that is worth mentioning. First, the
* local execution on multiple shards might be slow because the execution has to
* happen one task at a time (e.g., no parallelism). Second, if a transaction
* block/CTE starts with a multi-shard command, we do not use local query execution
* since local execution is sequential. Basically, we do not want to lose parallelism
* across local tasks by switching to local execution. Third, the local execution
* currently only supports queries. In other words, any utility commands like TRUNCATE,
* fails if the command is executed after a local execution inside a transaction block.
* Forth, the local execution cannot be mixed with the executors other than adaptive,
* namely task-tracker, real-time and router executors. Finally, related with the
* previous item, COPY command cannot be mixed with local execution in a transaction.
* The implication of that any part of INSERT..SELECT via coordinator cannot happen
* via the local execution.
*/
Marco Slot
Onder Kalaci
SaitTalhaNisanci
Jelte Fennema
Hadi Moshayedi
Onur Tirtir
Hanefi Onaldi
Onder Kalaci
Philip Dubé
Philip Dubé