Uncrustify 0.65 appears to have changed some defaults, resulting in
breakages for those of us who have already upgraded; Travis still uses
Uncrustify 0.64, but these changes work with both versions (assuming
appropriately updated config), so this should permit use of either
version for the time being.
We previously dismissed this as unimportant, but it turns out to be
very useful for the upcoming subquery pushdown, where a user might
specify an equality constraint in a subquery, and the subquery
pushdown machinery adds >= and <= restrictions on the shard boundary.
Previously the latter restriction was ignored.
So far citus used postgres' predicate proofing logic for shard
pruning, except for INSERT and COPY which were already optimized for
speed. That turns out to be too slow:
* Shard pruning for SELECTs is currently O(#shards), because
PruneShardList calls predicate_refuted_by() for every
shard. Obviously using an O(N) type algorithm for general pruning
isn't good.
* predicate_refuted_by() is quite expensive on its own right. That's
primarily because it's optimized for doing a single refutation
proof, rather than performing the same proof over and over.
* predicate_refuted_by() does not keep persistent state (see 2.) for
function calls, which means that a lot of syscache lookups will be
performed. That's particularly bad if the partitioning key is a
composite key, because without a persistent FunctionCallInfo
record_cmp() has to repeatedly look-up the type definition of the
composite key. That's quite expensive.
Thus replace this with custom-code that works in two phases:
1) Search restrictions for constraints that can be pruned upon
2) Use those restrictions to search for matching shards in the most
efficient manner available:
a) Binary search / Hash Lookup in case of hash partitioned tables
b) Binary search for equal clauses in case of range or append
tables without overlapping shards.
c) Binary search for inequality clauses, searching for both lower
and upper boundaries, again in case of range or append
tables without overlapping shards.
d) exhaustive search testing each ShardInterval
My measurements suggest that we are considerably, often orders of
magnitude, faster than the previous solution, even if we have to fall
back to exhaustive pruning.
velioglu
Andres Freund
Jason Petersen