* use adaptive executor even if task-tracker is set
* Update check-multi-mx tests for adaptive executor
Basically repartition joins are enabled where necessary. For parallel
tests max adaptive executor pool size is decresed to 2, otherwise we
would get too many clients error.
* Update limit_intermediate_size test
It seems that when we use adaptive executor instead of task tracker, we
exceed the intermediate result size less in the test. Therefore updated
the tests accordingly.
* Update multi_router_planner
It seems that there is one problem with multi_router_planner when we use
adaptive executor, we should fix the following error:
+ERROR: relation "authors_range_840010" does not exist
+CONTEXT: while executing command on localhost:57637
* update repartition join tests for check-multi
* update isolation tests for repartitioning
* Error out if shard_replication_factor > 1 with repartitioning
As we are removing the task tracker, we cannot switch to it if
shard_replication_factor > 1. In that case, we simply error out.
* Remove MULTI_EXECUTOR_TASK_TRACKER
* Remove multi_task_tracker_executor
Some utility methods are moved to task_execution_utils.c.
* Remove task tracker protocol methods
* Remove task_tracker.c methods
* remove unused methods from multi_server_executor
* fix style
* remove task tracker specific tests from worker_schedule
* comment out task tracker udf calls in tests
We were using task tracker udfs to test permissions in
multi_multiuser.sql. We should find some other way to test them, then we
should remove the commented out task tracker calls.
* remove task tracker test from follower schedule
* remove task tracker tests from multi mx schedule
* Remove task-tracker specific functions from worker functions
* remove multi task tracker extra schedule
* Remove unused methods from multi physical planner
* remove task_executor_type related things in tests
* remove LoadTuplesIntoTupleStore
* Do initial cleanup for repartition leftovers
During startup, task tracker would call TrackerCleanupJobDirectories and
TrackerCleanupJobSchemas to clean up leftover directories and job
schemas. With adaptive executor, while doing repartitions it is possible
to leak these things as well. We don't retry cleanups, so it is possible
to have leftover in case of errors.
TrackerCleanupJobDirectories is renamed as
RepartitionCleanupJobDirectories since it is repartition specific now,
however TrackerCleanupJobSchemas cannot be used currently because it is
task tracker specific. The thing is that this function is a no-op
currently.
We should add cleaning up intermediate schemas to DoInitialCleanup
method when that problem is solved(We might want to solve it in this PR
as well)
* Revert "remove task tracker tests from multi mx schedule"
This reverts commit 03ecc0a681.
* update multi mx repartition parallel tests
* not error with task_tracker_conninfo_cache_invalidate
* not run 4 repartition queries in parallel
It seems that when we run 4 repartition queries in parallel we get too
many clients error on CI even though we don't get it locally. Our guess
is that, it is because we open/close many connections without doing some
work and postgres has some delay to close the connections. Hence even
though connections are removed from the pg_stat_activity, they might
still not be closed. If the above assumption is correct, it is unlikely
for it to happen in practice because:
- There is some network latency in clusters, so this leaves some times
for connections to be able to close
- Repartition joins return some data and that also leaves some time for
connections to be fully closed.
As we don't get this error in our local, we currently assume that it is
not a bug. Ideally this wouldn't happen when we get rid of the
task-tracker repartition methods because they don't do any pruning and
might be opening more connections than necessary.
If this still gives us "too many clients" error, we can try to increase
the max_connections in our test suite(which is 100 by default).
Also there are different places where this error is given in postgres,
but adding some backtrace it seems that we get this from
ProcessStartupPacket. The backtraces can be found in this link:
https://circleci.com/gh/citusdata/citus/138702
* Set distributePlan->relationIdList when it is needed
It seems that we were setting the distributedPlan->relationIdList after
JobExecutorType is called, which would choose task-tracker if
replication factor > 1 and there is a repartition query. However, it
uses relationIdList to decide if the query has a repartition query, and
since it was not set yet, it would always think it is not a repartition
query and would choose adaptive executor when it should choose
task-tracker.
* use adaptive executor even with shard_replication_factor > 1
It seems that we were already using adaptive executor when
replication_factor > 1. So this commit removes the check.
* remove multi_resowner.c and deprecate some settings
* remove TaskExecution related leftovers
* change deprecated API error message
* not recursively plan single relatition repartition subquery
* recursively plan single relation repartition subquery
* test depreceated task tracker functions
* fix overlapping shard intervals in range-distributed test
* fix error message for citus_metadata_container
* drop task-tracker deprecated functions
* put the implemantation back to worker_cleanup_job_schema_cachesince citus cloud uses it
* drop some functions, add downgrade script
Some deprecated functions are dropped.
Downgrade script is added.
Some gucs are deprecated.
A new guc for repartition joins bucket size is added.
* order by a test to fix flappiness
DESCRIPTION: Fix left join shard pruning in pushdown planner
Due to #2481 which moves outer join planning through the pushdown planner we caused a regression on the shard pruning behaviour for outer joins.
In the pushdown planner we make a union of the placement groups for all shards accessed by a query based on the filters we see during planning. Unfortunately implicit filters for left joins are not available during this part. This causes the inner part of an outer join to not prune any shards away. When we take the union of the placement groups it shows the behaviour of not having any shards pruned.
Since the inner part of an outer query will not return any rows if the outer part does not contain any rows we have observed we do not have to add the shard intervals of the inner part of an outer query to the list of shard intervals to query.
Fixes: #3512
Previously a limitation in the shard pruning logic caused multi distribution value queries to always go into all the shards/workers whenever query also used OR conditions in WHERE clause.
Related to https://github.com/citusdata/citus/issues/2593 and https://github.com/citusdata/citus/issues/1537
There was no good workaround for this limitation. The limitation caused quite a bit of overhead with simple queries being sent to all workers/shards (especially with setups having lot of workers/shards).
An example of a previous plan which was inadequately pruned:
```
EXPLAIN SELECT count(*) FROM orders_hash_partitioned
WHERE (o_orderkey IN (1,2)) AND (o_custkey = 11 OR o_custkey = 22);
QUERY PLAN
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Aggregate (cost=0.00..0.00 rows=0 width=0)
-> Custom Scan (Citus Adaptive) (cost=0.00..0.00 rows=0 width=0)
Task Count: 4
Tasks Shown: One of 4
-> Task
Node: host=localhost port=xxxxx dbname=regression
-> Aggregate (cost=13.68..13.69 rows=1 width=8)
-> Seq Scan on orders_hash_partitioned_630000 orders_hash_partitioned (cost=0.00..13.68 rows=1 width=0)
Filter: ((o_orderkey = ANY ('{1,2}'::integer[])) AND ((o_custkey = 11) OR (o_custkey = 22)))
(9 rows)
```
After this commit the task count is what one would expect from the query defining multiple distinct values for the distribution column:
```
EXPLAIN SELECT count(*) FROM orders_hash_partitioned
WHERE (o_orderkey IN (1,2)) AND (o_custkey = 11 OR o_custkey = 22);
QUERY PLAN
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Aggregate (cost=0.00..0.00 rows=0 width=0)
-> Custom Scan (Citus Adaptive) (cost=0.00..0.00 rows=0 width=0)
Task Count: 2
Tasks Shown: One of 2
-> Task
Node: host=localhost port=xxxxx dbname=regression
-> Aggregate (cost=13.68..13.69 rows=1 width=8)
-> Seq Scan on orders_hash_partitioned_630000 orders_hash_partitioned (cost=0.00..13.68 rows=1 width=0)
Filter: ((o_orderkey = ANY ('{1,2}'::integer[])) AND ((o_custkey = 11) OR (o_custkey = 22)))
(9 rows)
```
"Core" of the pruning logic works as previously where it uses `PrunableInstances` to queue ORable valid constraints for shard pruning.
The difference is that now we build a compact internal representation of the query expression tree with PruningTreeNodes before actual shard pruning is run.
Pruning tree nodes represent boolean operators and the associated constraints of it. This internal format allows us to have compact representation of the query WHERE clauses which allows "core" pruning logic to work with OR-clauses correctly.
For example query having
`WHERE (o_orderkey IN (1,2)) AND (o_custkey=11 OR (o_shippriority > 1 AND o_shippriority < 10))`
gets transformed into:
1. AND(o_orderkey IN (1,2), OR(X, AND(X, X)))
2. AND(o_orderkey IN (1,2), OR(X, X))
3. AND(o_orderkey IN (1,2), X)
Here X is any set of unknown condition(s) for shard pruning.
This allow the final shard pruning to correctly recognize that shard pruning is done with the valid condition of `o_orderkey IN (1,2)`.
Another example with unprunable condition in query
`WHERE (o_orderkey IN (1,2)) OR (o_custkey=11 AND o_custkey=22)`
gets transformed into:
1. OR(o_orderkey IN (1,2), AND(X, X))
2. OR(o_orderkey IN (1,2), X)
Which is recognized as unprunable due to the OR condition between distribution column and unknown constraint -> goes to all shards.
Issue https://github.com/citusdata/citus/issues/1537 originally suggested transforming the query conditions into a full disjunctive normal form (DNF),
but this process of transforming into DNF is quite a heavy operation. It may "blow up" into a really large DNF form with complex queries having non trivial `WHERE` clauses.
I think the logic for shard pruning could be simplified further but I decided to leave the "core" of the shard pruning untouched.
In this context, we define "Fast Path Planning for SELECT" as trivial
queries where Citus can skip relying on the standard_planner() and
handle all the planning.
For router planner, standard_planner() is mostly important to generate
the necessary restriction information. Later, the restriction information
generated by the standard_planner is used to decide whether all the shards
that a distributed query touches reside on a single worker node. However,
standard_planner() does a lot of extra things such as cost estimation and
execution path generations which are completely unnecessary in the context
of distributed planning.
There are certain types of queries where Citus could skip relying on
standard_planner() to generate the restriction information. For queries
in the following format, Citus does not need any information that the
standard_planner() generates:
SELECT ... FROM single_table WHERE distribution_key = X; or
DELETE FROM single_table WHERE distribution_key = X; or
UPDATE single_table SET value_1 = value_2 + 1 WHERE distribution_key = X;
Note that the queries might not be as simple as the above such that
GROUP BY, WINDOW FUNCIONS, ORDER BY or HAVING etc. are all acceptable. The
only rule is that the query is on a single distributed (or reference) table
and there is a "distribution_key = X;" in the WHERE clause. With that, we
could use to decide the shard that a distributed query touches reside on
a worker node.
We used to disable router planner and executor
when task executor is set to task-tracker.
This change enables router planning and execution
at all times regardless of task execution mode.
We are introducing a hidden flag enable_router_execution
to enable/disable router execution. Its default value is
true. User may disable router planning by setting it to false.
Two sets of tests are fixed by this change:
* multi_agg_approximate_distinct
* those in multi_task_tracker_extra_schedule
The first broke when we renamed stage to load in many files and was
never being run because the HyperLogLog extension wasn't easily
available in Debian. Now it's in our repo, so we install it and run
the test. I removed the distinct HLL target in favor of just always
running it and providing an output variant to handle when the extension
is absent. Basically, if PostgreSQL thinks HLL is available, the test
installs it and runs normally, otherwise the absent variant is used.
The second broke when I removed a test variant, erroneously believing
it to be related to an older Citus version. I've added a line in that
test to clarify why the variant is necessary (a practice we should
widely adopt).
"Staging table" will be the only valid use of 'stage' from now on, we
will now say "load" when talking about data ingestion. If creation of
shards is its own step, we'll just say "shard creation".
Fixes#271
This change sets ShardIds and JobIds for each test case. Before this change,
when a new test that somehow increments Job or Shard IDs is added, then
the tests after the new test should be updated.
ShardID and JobID sequences are set at the beginning of each file with the
following commands:
```
ALTER SEQUENCE pg_catalog.pg_dist_shardid_seq RESTART 290000;
ALTER SEQUENCE pg_catalog.pg_dist_jobid_seq RESTART 290000;
```
ShardIds and JobIds are multiples of 10000. Exceptions are:
- multi_large_shardid: shardid and jobid sequences are set to much larger values
- multi_fdw_large_shardid: same as above
- multi_join_pruning: Causes a race condition with multi_hash_pruning since
they are run in parallel.
This commit fixes failures happen during check-full. The change does make
clean seperation of executor types in certain places to keep the outputs
stable.
Fixes issue #258
Prior to this change, Citus gives a deceptive NOTICE message when a query
including ANY or ALL on a non-partition column is issued on a hash
partitioned table.
Let the github_events table be hash-distributed on repo_id column. Then,
issuing this query:
SELECT count(*) FROM github_events WHERE event_id = ANY ('{1,2,3}')
Gives this message:
NOTICE: cannot use shard pruning with ANY (array expression)
HINT: Consider rewriting the expression with OR clauses.
Note that since event_id is not the partition column, shard pruning would
not be applied in any case. However, the NOTICE message would be valid
and be given if the ANY clause would have been applied on repo_id column.
Reviewer: Murat Tuncer
SaitTalhaNisanci
Nils Dijk
Markus Sintonen
Philip Dubé
Onder Kalaci
velioglu
Marco Slot
Andres Freund
Murat Tuncer
Jason Petersen
Eren