Обсуждение: Predicates not getting pushed into SQL function?
I'm confused. I have a now-trivial SQL function that, unrestricted, would scan my whole users table. When I paste the body of the function as a subquery and restrict it to one row, it only produces one row. When I paste the body of the function into a view and restrict it to one row, it produces one row. But when I put it in a SQL function... it scans the whole users table and then throws the other rows away. I thought SQL functions were generally inline-able, push-down-able, etc. As a workaround, I can put my WHERE clause inside the function and pass it parameters, but that feels ugly, and it won't help for things like resticting via JOINs. The real function needs parameters, so I can't use it as a view. Are there better workarounds? I suspect the problem is (something like) the planner doesn't realize the function will produce a variable number of rows; I can specify COST or ROWS, but they're both fixed values. Pretty-printed function and explain analyze results: https://gist.github.com/1336963 In ASCII for web-haters and posterity: -- THE OVERLY SIMPLIFIED FUNCTION create or replace function matcher() returns table(user_id int, match int) as $$ select o.user_id, 1 as match from ( select u.id as user_id, u.gender from users as u ) as o cross join ( select u.id as user_id, u.gender from users as u where u.id = 1 ) as my; $$ language sql stable; -- WHEN I CALL IT AS A FUNCTION select * from matcher() where user_id = 2; LOG: duration: 1.242 ms plan: Query Text: select o.user_id, 1 as match from ( select u.id as user_id, u.gender from users as u ) as o cross join ( select u.id as user_id, u.gender from users as u where u.id = 1 ) as my; Nested Loop (cost=0.00..118.39 rows=1656 width=4) (actual time=0.022..0.888 rows=1613 loops=1) Output: u.id, 1 -> Index Scan using users_pkey on public.users u (cost=0.00..8.27 rows=1 width=0) (actual time=0.013..0.015 rows=1 loops=1) Index Cond: (u.id = 1) -> Seq Scan on public.users u (cost=0.00..93.56 rows=1656 width=4) (actual time=0.004..0.479 rows=1613 loops=1) Output: u.id CONTEXT: SQL function "matcher" statement 1 LOG: duration: 1.951 ms plan: Query Text: select * from matcher() where user_id = 2; Function Scan on public.matcher (cost=0.25..12.75 rows=5 width=8) (actual time=1.687..1.940 rows=1 loops=1) Output: user_id, match Filter: (matcher.user_id = 2) -- WHEN I CALL IT AS A SUBQUERY select * from ( select o.user_id, 1 as match from ( select u.id as user_id, u.gender from users as u ) as o cross join ( select u.id as user_id, u.gender from users as u where u.id = 1 ) as my ) as matcher where user_id = 2; LOG: duration: 0.044 ms plan: Query Text: select * from ( select o.user_id, 1 as match from ( select u.id as user_id, u.gender from users as u ) as o cross join ( select u.id as user_id, u.gender from users as u where u.id = 1 ) as my ) as matcher where user_id = 2; Nested Loop (cost=0.00..16.55 rows=1 width=4) (actual time=0.028..0.031 rows=1 loops=1) Output: u.id, 1 -> Index Scan using users_pkey on public.users u (cost=0.00..8.27 rows=1 width=4) (actual time=0.021..0.022 rows=1 loops=1) Output: u.id Index Cond: (u.id = 2) -> Index Scan using users_pkey on public.users u (cost=0.00..8.27 rows=1 width=0) (actual time=0.004..0.006 rows=1 loops=1) Index Cond: (u.id = 1) -- WHEN I CALL IT AS A VIEW create view matchview as select o.user_id, 1 as match from ( select u.id as user_id, u.gender from users as u ) as o cross join ( select u.id as user_id, u.gender from users as u where u.id = 1 ) as my; select * from matchview where user_id = 2; LOG: duration: 0.044 ms plan: Query Text: select * from matchview where user_id = 2; Nested Loop (cost=0.00..16.55 rows=1 width=4) (actual time=0.028..0.031 rows=1 loops=1) Output: u.id, 1 -> Index Scan using users_pkey on public.users u (cost=0.00..8.27 rows=1 width=4) (actual time=0.021..0.022 rows=1 loops=1) Output: u.id Index Cond: (u.id = 2) -> Index Scan using users_pkey on public.users u (cost=0.00..8.27 rows=1 width=0) (actual time=0.005..0.007 rows=1 loops=1) Index Cond: (u.id = 1)
Jay Levitt <jay.levitt@gmail.com> writes:
> I'm confused. I have a now-trivial SQL function that, unrestricted, would
> scan my whole users table. When I paste the body of the function as a
> subquery and restrict it to one row, it only produces one row. When I paste
> the body of the function into a view and restrict it to one row, it produces
> one row. But when I put it in a SQL function... it scans the whole users
> table and then throws the other rows away.
> I thought SQL functions were generally inline-able, push-down-able, etc.
inline-able, yes, but if they're not inlined you don't get any such
thing as pushdown of external conditions into the function body.
A non-inlined function is a black box.
The interesting question here is why the function doesn't get inlined
into the calling query. You got the obvious showstoppers: it has a
SETOF result, it's not volatile, nor strict. The only other possibility
I can see offhand is that there's some sort of result datatype mismatch,
but you've not provided enough info to be sure about that.
regards, tom lane
What other info can I provide? id is int, gender is varchar(255), and it's happening on 9.0.4...
Tom LaneNovember 3, 2011 2:41 PMJay Levitt <jay.levitt@gmail.com> writes:I'm confused. I have a now-trivial SQL function that, unrestricted, would scan my whole users table. When I paste the body of the function as a subquery and restrict it to one row, it only produces one row. When I paste the body of the function into a view and restrict it to one row, it produces one row. But when I put it in a SQL function... it scans the whole users table and then throws the other rows away.I thought SQL functions were generally inline-able, push-down-able, etc.inline-able, yes, but if they're not inlined you don't get any such thing as pushdown of external conditions into the function body. A non-inlined function is a black box. The interesting question here is why the function doesn't get inlined into the calling query. You got the obvious showstoppers: it has a SETOF result, it's not volatile, nor strict. The only other possibility I can see offhand is that there's some sort of result datatype mismatch, but you've not provided enough info to be sure about that. regards, tom laneJay LevittNovember 3, 2011 1:47 PMI'm confused. I have a now-trivial SQL function that, unrestricted, would scan my whole users table. When I paste the body of the function as a subquery and restrict it to one row, it only produces one row. When I paste the body of the function into a view and restrict it to one row, it produces one row. But when I put it in a SQL function... it scans the whole users table and then throws the other rows away.
I thought SQL functions were generally inline-able, push-down-able, etc. As a workaround, I can put my WHERE clause inside the function and pass it parameters, but that feels ugly, and it won't help for things like resticting via JOINs. The real function needs parameters, so I can't use it as a view. Are there better workarounds?
I suspect the problem is (something like) the planner doesn't realize the function will produce a variable number of rows; I can specify COST or ROWS, but they're both fixed values.
Pretty-printed function and explain analyze results:
https://gist.github.com/1336963
In ASCII for web-haters and posterity:
-- THE OVERLY SIMPLIFIED FUNCTION
create or replace function matcher()
returns table(user_id int, match int) as $$
select o.user_id, 1 as match
from (
select u.id as user_id, u.gender
from users as u
) as o
cross join
(
select u.id as user_id, u.gender
from users as u
where u.id = 1
) as my;
$$ language sql stable;
-- WHEN I CALL IT AS A FUNCTION
select * from matcher() where user_id = 2;
LOG: duration: 1.242 ms plan:
Query Text:
select o.user_id, 1 as match
from (
select u.id as user_id, u.gender
from users as u
) as o
cross join
(
select u.id as user_id, u.gender
from users as u
where u.id = 1
) as my;
Nested Loop (cost=0.00..118.39 rows=1656 width=4) (actual time=0.022..0.888 rows=1613 loops=1)
Output: u.id, 1
-> Index Scan using users_pkey on public.users u (cost=0.00..8.27 rows=1 width=0) (actual time=0.013..0.015 rows=1 loops=1)
Index Cond: (u.id = 1)
-> Seq Scan on public.users u (cost=0.00..93.56 rows=1656 width=4) (actual time=0.004..0.479 rows=1613 loops=1)
Output: u.id
CONTEXT: SQL function "matcher" statement 1
LOG: duration: 1.951 ms plan:
Query Text: select * from matcher() where user_id = 2;
Function Scan on public.matcher (cost=0.25..12.75 rows=5 width=8) (actual time=1.687..1.940 rows=1 loops=1)
Output: user_id, match
Filter: (matcher.user_id = 2)
-- WHEN I CALL IT AS A SUBQUERY
select * from
(
select o.user_id, 1 as match
from (
select u.id as user_id, u.gender
from users as u
) as o
cross join
(
select u.id as user_id, u.gender
from users as u
where u.id = 1
) as my
) as matcher
where user_id = 2;
LOG: duration: 0.044 ms plan:
Query Text: select * from
(
select o.user_id, 1 as match
from (
select u.id as user_id, u.gender
from users as u
) as o
cross join
(
select u.id as user_id, u.gender
from users as u
where u.id = 1
) as my
) as matcher
where user_id = 2;
Nested Loop (cost=0.00..16.55 rows=1 width=4) (actual time=0.028..0.031 rows=1 loops=1)
Output: u.id, 1
-> Index Scan using users_pkey on public.users u (cost=0.00..8.27 rows=1 width=4) (actual time=0.021..0.022 rows=1 loops=1)
Output: u.id
Index Cond: (u.id = 2)
-> Index Scan using users_pkey on public.users u (cost=0.00..8.27 rows=1 width=0) (actual time=0.004..0.006 rows=1 loops=1)
Index Cond: (u.id = 1)
-- WHEN I CALL IT AS A VIEW
create view matchview as
select o.user_id, 1 as match
from (
select u.id as user_id, u.gender
from users as u
) as o
cross join
(
select u.id as user_id, u.gender
from users as u
where u.id = 1
) as my;
select * from matchview where user_id = 2;
LOG: duration: 0.044 ms plan:
Query Text: select * from matchview where user_id = 2;
Nested Loop (cost=0.00..16.55 rows=1 width=4) (actual time=0.028..0.031 rows=1 loops=1)
Output: u.id, 1
-> Index Scan using users_pkey on public.users u (cost=0.00..8.27 rows=1 width=4) (actual time=0.021..0.022 rows=1 loops=1)
Output: u.id
Index Cond: (u.id = 2)
-> Index Scan using users_pkey on public.users u (cost=0.00..8.27 rows=1 width=0) (actual time=0.005..0.007 rows=1 loops=1)
Index Cond: (u.id = 1)
Jay Levitt <jay.levitt@gmail.com> writes:
> <html><head>
> <meta content="text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1" http-equiv="Content-Type">
> </head><body bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000">What other info can I
> provide? id is int, gender is varchar(255), and it's happening on
> 9.0.4...<br>
> <blockquote style="border: 0px none;"
> [ etc etc ]
Please don't send HTML-only email to these lists.
Anyway, the answer seems to be that inline_set_returning_function needs
some work to handle cases with declared OUT parameters. I will see
about fixing that going forward, but in existing releases what you need
to do is declare the function as returning SETOF some named composite
type, eg
create type matcher_result as (user_id int, match int);
create or replace function matcher() returns setof matcher_result as ...
regards, tom lane
Tom Lane wrote: > Please don't send HTML-only email to these lists. Oops - new mail client, sorry. > Anyway, the answer seems to be that inline_set_returning_function needs > some work to handle cases with declared OUT parameters. I will see > about fixing that going forward, but in existing releases what you need > to do is declare the function as returning SETOF some named composite > type Yes, that patch works great! Oddly enough, the workaround now does NOT work; functions returning SETOF named composite types don't get inlined, but functions returning the equivalent TABLE do get inlined. Let me know if you need a failcase, but the bug doesn't actually affect me now :) Jay > > create type matcher_result as (user_id int, match int); > > create or replace function matcher() returns setof matcher_result as ...
Jay Levitt wrote: > Yes, that patch works great! Oddly enough, the workaround now does NOT work; > functions returning SETOF named composite types don't get inlined, but > functions returning the equivalent TABLE do get inlined. Let me know if you > need a failcase, but the bug doesn't actually affect me now :) Never mind... I left a "strict" in my test. Works great all around.