Check equality in quals
We want to recursively plan distributed tables only if they have an
equality filter on a unique column. So '>' and '<' operators will not
trigger recursive planning of distributed tables in local-distributed
table joins.
Recursively plan distributed table only if the filter is constant
If the filter is not a constant then the join might return multiple rows
and there is a chance that the distributed table will return huge data.
Hence if the filter is not constant we choose to recursively plan the
local table.
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.