- developers - lists.mariadb.org

[Maria-developers] Updated (by Guest): Table elimination (17)
by worklog-noreply＠askmonty.org 18 Jun '09

18 Jun '09

----------------------------------------------------------------------- WORKLOG TASK -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- TASK...........: Table elimination CREATION DATE..: Sun, 10 May 2009, 19:57 SUPERVISOR.....: Monty IMPLEMENTOR....: Psergey COPIES TO......: CATEGORY.......: Server-Sprint TASK ID........: 17 (http://askmonty.org/worklog/?tid=17) VERSION........: Server-5.1 STATUS.........: Assigned PRIORITY.......: 60 WORKED HOURS...: 0 ESTIMATE.......: 0 (hours remain) ORIG. ESTIMATE.: 0 PROGRESS NOTES: -=-=(Guest - Thu, 18 Jun 2009, 02:48)=-=- Low Level Design modified. --- /tmp/wklog.17.old.27792 2009-06-18 02:48:45.000000000 +0300 +++ /tmp/wklog.17.new.27792 2009-06-18 02:48:45.000000000 +0300 @@ -89,14 +89,14 @@ - queries that would use elimination - queries that are very similar to one above (so that they would have same QEP, execution cost, etc) but cannot use table elimination. +then compare run times and make a conclusion about whether dbms supports table +elimination. 6. Todo, issues to resolve -------------------------- 6.1 To resolve ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ -- Re-check how this works with equality propagation. - - Relationship with prepared statements. On one hand, it's natural to desire to make table elimination a once-per-statement operation, like outer->inner join conversion. We'll have @@ -141,8 +141,13 @@ 7. Additional issues -------------------- -* We remove ON clauses within semi-join nests. If these clauses contain +* We remove ON clauses within outer join nests. If these clauses contain subqueries, they probably should be gone from EXPLAIN output also? + Yes. Current approach: when removing an outer join nest, walk the ON clause + and mark subselects as eliminated. Then let EXPLAIN code check if the + SELECT was eliminated before the printing (EXPLAIN is generated by doing + a recursive descent, so the check will also cause children of eliminated + selects not to be printed) * Table elimination is performed after constant table detection (but before the range analysis). Constant tables are technically different from -=-=(Guest - Thu, 18 Jun 2009, 02:24)=-=- Low Level Design modified. --- /tmp/wklog.17.old.27162 2009-06-18 02:24:14.000000000 +0300 +++ /tmp/wklog.17.new.27162 2009-06-18 02:24:14.000000000 +0300 @@ -83,9 +83,12 @@ 5. Tests and benchmarks ----------------------- -Should create a benchmark in sql-bench which checks if the dbms has table +Create a benchmark in sql-bench which checks if the DBMS has table elimination. -TODO elaborate +[According to Monty] Run + - queries that would use elimination + - queries that are very similar to one above (so that they would have same + QEP, execution cost, etc) but cannot use table elimination. 6. Todo, issues to resolve -------------------------- @@ -109,33 +112,37 @@ 6.2 Resolved ~~~~~~~~~~~~ -- outer->inner join conversion is not a problem for table elimination. +* outer->inner join conversion is not a problem for table elimination. We make outer->inner conversions based on predicates in WHERE. If the WHERE referred to an inner table (requirement for OJ->IJ conversion) then table elimination would not be applicable anyway. -7. Additional issues --------------------- -* We remove ON clauses within semi-join nests. If these clauses contain - subqueries, they probably should be gone from EXPLAIN output also? +* For Multi-table UPDATEs/DELETEs, need to also analyze the SET clause: + - affected tables must not be eliminated + - tables that are used on the right side of the SET x=y assignments must + not be eliminated either. -* Aggregate functions report they depend on all tables, that is, +* Aggregate functions used to report that they depend on all tables, that is, item_agg_func->used_tables() == (1ULL << join->tables) - 1 - always. If we want table elimination to work in presence of grouping, need - to devise some other way of analyzing aggregate functions. + always. Fixed it, now aggregate function reports it depends on + tables that its arguments depend on. In particular, COUNT(*) reports + that it depends on no tables (item_count_star->used_tables()==0). + One consequence of that is that "item->used_tables()==0" is not + equivalent to "item->const_item()==true" anymore (not sure if it's + "anymore" or this has been already happening). + +* EXPLAIN EXTENDED warning text was generated after the JOIN object has + been discarded. This didn't allow to use information about join plan + when printing the warning. Fixed this by keeping the JOIN objects until + we've printed the warning (have also an intent to remove the const + tables from the join output). -* Should eliminated tables be shown in EXPLAIN EXTENDED? - - If we just ignore the question, they will be shown - - this is what happens for constant tables, too. - - I don't see how showing them could be of any use. They only make it - harder to read the rewritten query. - It turns out that - - it is easy to have EXPLAIN EXTENDED show permanent (once-per-statement - lifetime) changes. - - it is hard to have it show per-execution data. This is because the warning - text is generated after the execution structures have been destroyed. +7. Additional issues +-------------------- +* We remove ON clauses within semi-join nests. If these clauses contain + subqueries, they probably should be gone from EXPLAIN output also? * Table elimination is performed after constant table detection (but before the range analysis). Constant tables are technically different from @@ -143,8 +150,6 @@ Considering we've already done the join_read_const_table() call, is there any real difference between constant table and eliminated one? If there is, should we mark const tables also as eliminated? + from user/EXPLAIN point of view: no. constant table is the one that we read + one record from. eliminated table is the one that we don't acccess at all. -* For Multi-table UPDATEs/DELETEs, need to also analyze the SET clause: - - affected tables must not be eliminated - - tables that are used on the right side of the SET x=y assignments must - not be eliminated either. -=-=(Guest - Tue, 16 Jun 2009, 17:01)=-=- Dependency deleted: 29 no longer depends on 17 -=-=(Guest - Wed, 10 Jun 2009, 01:23)=-=- Low Level Design modified. --- /tmp/wklog.17.old.1842 2009-06-10 01:23:42.000000000 +0300 +++ /tmp/wklog.17.new.1842 2009-06-10 01:23:42.000000000 +0300 @@ -131,6 +131,11 @@ - this is what happens for constant tables, too. - I don't see how showing them could be of any use. They only make it harder to read the rewritten query. + It turns out that + - it is easy to have EXPLAIN EXTENDED show permanent (once-per-statement + lifetime) changes. + - it is hard to have it show per-execution data. This is because the warning + text is generated after the execution structures have been destroyed. * Table elimination is performed after constant table detection (but before the range analysis). Constant tables are technically different from -=-=(Guest - Wed, 03 Jun 2009, 22:01)=-=- Low Level Design modified. --- /tmp/wklog.17.old.21801 2009-06-03 22:01:34.000000000 +0300 +++ /tmp/wklog.17.new.21801 2009-06-03 22:01:34.000000000 +0300 @@ -1,3 +1,6 @@ +The code (currently in development) is at lp: +~maria-captains/maria/maria-5.1-table-elimination tree. + <contents> 1. Conditions for removal 1.1 Quick check if there are candidates -=-=(Guest - Wed, 03 Jun 2009, 15:04)=-=- Low Level Design modified. --- /tmp/wklog.17.old.20378 2009-06-03 15:04:54.000000000 +0300 +++ /tmp/wklog.17.new.20378 2009-06-03 15:04:54.000000000 +0300 @@ -135,3 +135,8 @@ Considering we've already done the join_read_const_table() call, is there any real difference between constant table and eliminated one? If there is, should we mark const tables also as eliminated? + +* For Multi-table UPDATEs/DELETEs, need to also analyze the SET clause: + - affected tables must not be eliminated + - tables that are used on the right side of the SET x=y assignments must + not be eliminated either. -=-=(Psergey - Wed, 03 Jun 2009, 12:07)=-=- Dependency created: 29 now depends on 17 -=-=(Guest - Tue, 02 Jun 2009, 00:54)=-=- Low Level Design modified. --- /tmp/wklog.17.old.23548 2009-06-02 00:54:13.000000000 +0300 +++ /tmp/wklog.17.new.23548 2009-06-02 00:54:13.000000000 +0300 @@ -128,3 +128,10 @@ - this is what happens for constant tables, too. - I don't see how showing them could be of any use. They only make it harder to read the rewritten query. + +* Table elimination is performed after constant table detection (but before + the range analysis). Constant tables are technically different from + eliminated ones (e.g. the former are shown in EXPLAIN and the latter aren't). + Considering we've already done the join_read_const_table() call, is there any + real difference between constant table and eliminated one? If there is, should + we mark const tables also as eliminated? -=-=(Psergey - Mon, 01 Jun 2009, 20:46)=-=- Low Level Design modified. --- /tmp/wklog.17.old.17448 2009-06-01 20:46:40.000000000 +0300 +++ /tmp/wklog.17.new.17448 2009-06-01 20:46:40.000000000 +0300 @@ -122,3 +122,9 @@ always. If we want table elimination to work in presence of grouping, need to devise some other way of analyzing aggregate functions. + +* Should eliminated tables be shown in EXPLAIN EXTENDED? + - If we just ignore the question, they will be shown + - this is what happens for constant tables, too. + - I don't see how showing them could be of any use. They only make it + harder to read the rewritten query. -=-=(Guest - Mon, 01 Jun 2009, 12:49)=-=- Low Level Design modified. --- /tmp/wklog.17.old.32202 2009-06-01 12:49:15.000000000 +0300 +++ /tmp/wklog.17.new.32202 2009-06-01 12:49:15.000000000 +0300 @@ -8,7 +8,7 @@ 6. Todo, issues to resolve 6.1 To resolve 6.2 Resolved - +7. Additional issues </contents> It's not really about elimination of tables, it's about elimination of inner @@ -116,3 +116,9 @@ * We remove ON clauses within semi-join nests. If these clauses contain subqueries, they probably should be gone from EXPLAIN output also? +* Aggregate functions report they depend on all tables, that is, + + item_agg_func->used_tables() == (1ULL << join->tables) - 1 + + always. If we want table elimination to work in presence of grouping, need + to devise some other way of analyzing aggregate functions. ------------------------------------------------------------ -=-=(View All Progress Notes, 25 total)=-=- http://askmonty.org/worklog/index.pl?tid=17&nolimit=1 DESCRIPTION: Eliminate not needed tables from SELECT queries.. This will speed up some views and automatically generated queries. Example: CREATE TABLE B (id int primary key); select A.colA from tableA A left outer join tableB B on B.id = A.id; In this case we can remove table B and the join from the query. HIGH-LEVEL SPECIFICATION: Here is an extended explanation of table elimination. Table elimination is a feature found in some modern query optimizers, of which Microsoft SQL Server 2005/2008 seems to have the most advanced implementation. Oracle 11g has also been confirmed to use table elimination but not to the same extent. Basically, what table elimination does, is to remove tables from the execution plan when it is unnecessary to include them. This can, of course, only happen if the right circumstances arise. Let us for example look at the following query: select A.colA from tableA A left outer join tableB B on B.id = A.id; When using A as the left table we ensure that the query will return at least as many rows as there are in that table. For rows where the join condition (B.id = A.id) is not met the selected column (A.colA) will still contain it's original value. The not seen B.* row would contain all NULL:s. However, the result set could actually contain more rows than what is found in tableA if there are duplicates of the column B.id in tableB. If A contains a row [1, "val1"] and B the rows [1, "other1a"],[1, "other1b"] then two rows will match in the join condition. The only way to know what the result will look like is to actually touch both tables during execution. Instead, let's say that tableB contains rows that make it possible to place a unique constraint on the column B.id, for example and often the case a primary key. In this situation we know that we will get exactly as many rows as there are in tableA, since joining with tableB cannot introduce any duplicates. If further, as in the example query, we do not select any columns from tableB, touching that table during execution is unnecessary. We can remove the whole join operation from the execution plan. Both SQL Server 2005/2008 and Oracle 11g will deploy table elimination in the case described above. Let us look at a more advanced query, where Oracle fails. select A.colA from tableA A left outer join tableB B on B.id = A.id and B.fromDate = ( select max(sub.fromDate) from tableB sub where sub.id = A.id ); In this example we have added another join condition, which ensures that we only pick the matching row from tableB having the latest fromDate. In this case tableB will contain duplicates of the column B.id, so in order to ensure uniqueness the primary key has to contain the fromDate column as well. In other words the primary key of tableB is (B.id, B.fromDate). Furthermore, since the subselect ensures that we only pick the latest B.fromDate for a given B.id we know that at most one row will match the join condition. We will again have the situation where joining with tableB cannot affect the number of rows in the result set. Since we do not select any columns from tableB, the whole join operation can be eliminated from the execution plan. SQL Server 2005/2008 will deploy table elimination in this situation as well. We have not found a way to make Oracle 11g use it for this type of query. Queries like these arise in two situations. Either when you have denormalized model consisting of a fact table with several related dimension tables, or when you have a highly normalized model where each attribute is stored in its own table. The example with the subselect is common whenever you store historized/versioned data. LOW-LEVEL DESIGN: The code (currently in development) is at lp: ~maria-captains/maria/maria-5.1-table-elimination tree. <contents> 1. Conditions for removal 1.1 Quick check if there are candidates 2. Removal operation properties 3. Removal operation 4. User interface 5. Tests and benchmarks 6. Todo, issues to resolve 6.1 To resolve 6.2 Resolved 7. Additional issues </contents> It's not really about elimination of tables, it's about elimination of inner sides of outer joins. 1. Conditions for removal ------------------------- We can eliminate an inner side of outer join if: 1. For each record combination of outer tables, it will always produce exactly one record. 2. There are no references to columns of the inner tables anywhere else in the query. #1 means that every table inside the outer join nest is: - is a constant table: = because it can be accessed via eq_ref(const) access, or = it is a zero-rows or one-row MyISAM-like table [MARK1] - has an eq_ref access method candidate. #2 means that WHERE clause, ON clauses of embedding outer joins, ORDER BY, GROUP BY and HAVING do not refer to the inner tables of the outer join nest. 1.1 Quick check if there are candidates ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Before we start to enumerate join nests, here is a quick way to check if there *can be* something to be removed: if ((tables used in select_list | tables used in group/order by UNION | tables used in where) != bitmap_of_all_tables) { attempt table elimination; } 2. Removal operation properties ------------------------------- * There is always one way to remove (no choice to remove either this or that) * It is always better to remove as much tables as possible (at least within our cost model). Thus, no need for any cost calculations/etc. It's an unconditional rewrite. 3. Removal operation -------------------- * Remove the outer join nest's nested join structure (i.e. get the outer join's TABLE_LIST object $OJ and remove it from $OJ->embedding, $OJ->embedding->nested_join. Update table_map's of all ancestor nested joins). [MARK2] * Move the tables and their JOIN_TABs to front like it is done with const tables, with exception that if eliminated outer join nest was within another outer join nest, that shouldn't prevent us from moving away the eliminated tables. * Update join->table_count and all-join-tables bitmap. * That's it. Nothing else? 4. User interface ----------------- * We'll add an @@optimizer switch flag for table elimination. Tentative name: 'table_elimination'. (Note ^^ utility of the above questioned ^, as table elimination can never be worse than no elimination. We're leaning towards not adding the flag) * EXPLAIN will not show the removed tables at all. This will allow to check if tables were removed, and also will behave nicely with anchor model and VIEWs: stuff that user doesn't care about just won't be there. 5. Tests and benchmarks ----------------------- Create a benchmark in sql-bench which checks if the DBMS has table elimination. [According to Monty] Run - queries that would use elimination - queries that are very similar to one above (so that they would have same QEP, execution cost, etc) but cannot use table elimination. then compare run times and make a conclusion about whether dbms supports table elimination. 6. Todo, issues to resolve -------------------------- 6.1 To resolve ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ - Relationship with prepared statements. On one hand, it's natural to desire to make table elimination a once-per-statement operation, like outer->inner join conversion. We'll have to limit the applicability by removing [MARK1] as that can change during lifetime of the statement. The other option is to do table elimination every time. This will require to rework operation [MARK2] to be undoable. I'm leaning towards doing the former. With anchor modeling, it is unlikely that we'll meet outer joins which have N inner tables of which some are 1-row MyISAM tables that do not have primary key. 6.2 Resolved ~~~~~~~~~~~~ * outer->inner join conversion is not a problem for table elimination. We make outer->inner conversions based on predicates in WHERE. If the WHERE referred to an inner table (requirement for OJ->IJ conversion) then table elimination would not be applicable anyway. * For Multi-table UPDATEs/DELETEs, need to also analyze the SET clause: - affected tables must not be eliminated - tables that are used on the right side of the SET x=y assignments must not be eliminated either. * Aggregate functions used to report that they depend on all tables, that is, item_agg_func->used_tables() == (1ULL << join->tables) - 1 always. Fixed it, now aggregate function reports it depends on tables that its arguments depend on. In particular, COUNT(*) reports that it depends on no tables (item_count_star->used_tables()==0). One consequence of that is that "item->used_tables()==0" is not equivalent to "item->const_item()==true" anymore (not sure if it's "anymore" or this has been already happening). * EXPLAIN EXTENDED warning text was generated after the JOIN object has been discarded. This didn't allow to use information about join plan when printing the warning. Fixed this by keeping the JOIN objects until we've printed the warning (have also an intent to remove the const tables from the join output). 7. Additional issues -------------------- * We remove ON clauses within outer join nests. If these clauses contain subqueries, they probably should be gone from EXPLAIN output also? Yes. Current approach: when removing an outer join nest, walk the ON clause and mark subselects as eliminated. Then let EXPLAIN code check if the SELECT was eliminated before the printing (EXPLAIN is generated by doing a recursive descent, so the check will also cause children of eliminated selects not to be printed) * Table elimination is performed after constant table detection (but before the range analysis). Constant tables are technically different from eliminated ones (e.g. the former are shown in EXPLAIN and the latter aren't). Considering we've already done the join_read_const_table() call, is there any real difference between constant table and eliminated one? If there is, should we mark const tables also as eliminated? from user/EXPLAIN point of view: no. constant table is the one that we read one record from. eliminated table is the one that we don't acccess at all. ESTIMATED WORK TIME ESTIMATED COMPLETION DATE ----------------------------------------------------------------------- WorkLog (v3.5.9)

1 0

[Maria-developers] Updated (by Guest): Table elimination (17)
by worklog-noreply＠askmonty.org 18 Jun '09

18 Jun '09

----------------------------------------------------------------------- WORKLOG TASK -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- TASK...........: Table elimination CREATION DATE..: Sun, 10 May 2009, 19:57 SUPERVISOR.....: Monty IMPLEMENTOR....: Psergey COPIES TO......: CATEGORY.......: Server-Sprint TASK ID........: 17 (http://askmonty.org/worklog/?tid=17) VERSION........: Server-5.1 STATUS.........: Assigned PRIORITY.......: 60 WORKED HOURS...: 0 ESTIMATE.......: 0 (hours remain) ORIG. ESTIMATE.: 0 PROGRESS NOTES: -=-=(Guest - Thu, 18 Jun 2009, 02:48)=-=- Low Level Design modified. --- /tmp/wklog.17.old.27792 2009-06-18 02:48:45.000000000 +0300 +++ /tmp/wklog.17.new.27792 2009-06-18 02:48:45.000000000 +0300 @@ -89,14 +89,14 @@ - queries that would use elimination - queries that are very similar to one above (so that they would have same QEP, execution cost, etc) but cannot use table elimination. +then compare run times and make a conclusion about whether dbms supports table +elimination. 6. Todo, issues to resolve -------------------------- 6.1 To resolve ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ -- Re-check how this works with equality propagation. - - Relationship with prepared statements. On one hand, it's natural to desire to make table elimination a once-per-statement operation, like outer->inner join conversion. We'll have @@ -141,8 +141,13 @@ 7. Additional issues -------------------- -* We remove ON clauses within semi-join nests. If these clauses contain +* We remove ON clauses within outer join nests. If these clauses contain subqueries, they probably should be gone from EXPLAIN output also? + Yes. Current approach: when removing an outer join nest, walk the ON clause + and mark subselects as eliminated. Then let EXPLAIN code check if the + SELECT was eliminated before the printing (EXPLAIN is generated by doing + a recursive descent, so the check will also cause children of eliminated + selects not to be printed) * Table elimination is performed after constant table detection (but before the range analysis). Constant tables are technically different from -=-=(Guest - Thu, 18 Jun 2009, 02:24)=-=- Low Level Design modified. --- /tmp/wklog.17.old.27162 2009-06-18 02:24:14.000000000 +0300 +++ /tmp/wklog.17.new.27162 2009-06-18 02:24:14.000000000 +0300 @@ -83,9 +83,12 @@ 5. Tests and benchmarks ----------------------- -Should create a benchmark in sql-bench which checks if the dbms has table +Create a benchmark in sql-bench which checks if the DBMS has table elimination. -TODO elaborate +[According to Monty] Run + - queries that would use elimination + - queries that are very similar to one above (so that they would have same + QEP, execution cost, etc) but cannot use table elimination. 6. Todo, issues to resolve -------------------------- @@ -109,33 +112,37 @@ 6.2 Resolved ~~~~~~~~~~~~ -- outer->inner join conversion is not a problem for table elimination. +* outer->inner join conversion is not a problem for table elimination. We make outer->inner conversions based on predicates in WHERE. If the WHERE referred to an inner table (requirement for OJ->IJ conversion) then table elimination would not be applicable anyway. -7. Additional issues --------------------- -* We remove ON clauses within semi-join nests. If these clauses contain - subqueries, they probably should be gone from EXPLAIN output also? +* For Multi-table UPDATEs/DELETEs, need to also analyze the SET clause: + - affected tables must not be eliminated + - tables that are used on the right side of the SET x=y assignments must + not be eliminated either. -* Aggregate functions report they depend on all tables, that is, +* Aggregate functions used to report that they depend on all tables, that is, item_agg_func->used_tables() == (1ULL << join->tables) - 1 - always. If we want table elimination to work in presence of grouping, need - to devise some other way of analyzing aggregate functions. + always. Fixed it, now aggregate function reports it depends on + tables that its arguments depend on. In particular, COUNT(*) reports + that it depends on no tables (item_count_star->used_tables()==0). + One consequence of that is that "item->used_tables()==0" is not + equivalent to "item->const_item()==true" anymore (not sure if it's + "anymore" or this has been already happening). + +* EXPLAIN EXTENDED warning text was generated after the JOIN object has + been discarded. This didn't allow to use information about join plan + when printing the warning. Fixed this by keeping the JOIN objects until + we've printed the warning (have also an intent to remove the const + tables from the join output). -* Should eliminated tables be shown in EXPLAIN EXTENDED? - - If we just ignore the question, they will be shown - - this is what happens for constant tables, too. - - I don't see how showing them could be of any use. They only make it - harder to read the rewritten query. - It turns out that - - it is easy to have EXPLAIN EXTENDED show permanent (once-per-statement - lifetime) changes. - - it is hard to have it show per-execution data. This is because the warning - text is generated after the execution structures have been destroyed. +7. Additional issues +-------------------- +* We remove ON clauses within semi-join nests. If these clauses contain + subqueries, they probably should be gone from EXPLAIN output also? * Table elimination is performed after constant table detection (but before the range analysis). Constant tables are technically different from @@ -143,8 +150,6 @@ Considering we've already done the join_read_const_table() call, is there any real difference between constant table and eliminated one? If there is, should we mark const tables also as eliminated? + from user/EXPLAIN point of view: no. constant table is the one that we read + one record from. eliminated table is the one that we don't acccess at all. -* For Multi-table UPDATEs/DELETEs, need to also analyze the SET clause: - - affected tables must not be eliminated - - tables that are used on the right side of the SET x=y assignments must - not be eliminated either. -=-=(Guest - Tue, 16 Jun 2009, 17:01)=-=- Dependency deleted: 29 no longer depends on 17 -=-=(Guest - Wed, 10 Jun 2009, 01:23)=-=- Low Level Design modified. --- /tmp/wklog.17.old.1842 2009-06-10 01:23:42.000000000 +0300 +++ /tmp/wklog.17.new.1842 2009-06-10 01:23:42.000000000 +0300 @@ -131,6 +131,11 @@ - this is what happens for constant tables, too. - I don't see how showing them could be of any use. They only make it harder to read the rewritten query. + It turns out that + - it is easy to have EXPLAIN EXTENDED show permanent (once-per-statement + lifetime) changes. + - it is hard to have it show per-execution data. This is because the warning + text is generated after the execution structures have been destroyed. * Table elimination is performed after constant table detection (but before the range analysis). Constant tables are technically different from -=-=(Guest - Wed, 03 Jun 2009, 22:01)=-=- Low Level Design modified. --- /tmp/wklog.17.old.21801 2009-06-03 22:01:34.000000000 +0300 +++ /tmp/wklog.17.new.21801 2009-06-03 22:01:34.000000000 +0300 @@ -1,3 +1,6 @@ +The code (currently in development) is at lp: +~maria-captains/maria/maria-5.1-table-elimination tree. + <contents> 1. Conditions for removal 1.1 Quick check if there are candidates -=-=(Guest - Wed, 03 Jun 2009, 15:04)=-=- Low Level Design modified. --- /tmp/wklog.17.old.20378 2009-06-03 15:04:54.000000000 +0300 +++ /tmp/wklog.17.new.20378 2009-06-03 15:04:54.000000000 +0300 @@ -135,3 +135,8 @@ Considering we've already done the join_read_const_table() call, is there any real difference between constant table and eliminated one? If there is, should we mark const tables also as eliminated? + +* For Multi-table UPDATEs/DELETEs, need to also analyze the SET clause: + - affected tables must not be eliminated + - tables that are used on the right side of the SET x=y assignments must + not be eliminated either. -=-=(Psergey - Wed, 03 Jun 2009, 12:07)=-=- Dependency created: 29 now depends on 17 -=-=(Guest - Tue, 02 Jun 2009, 00:54)=-=- Low Level Design modified. --- /tmp/wklog.17.old.23548 2009-06-02 00:54:13.000000000 +0300 +++ /tmp/wklog.17.new.23548 2009-06-02 00:54:13.000000000 +0300 @@ -128,3 +128,10 @@ - this is what happens for constant tables, too. - I don't see how showing them could be of any use. They only make it harder to read the rewritten query. + +* Table elimination is performed after constant table detection (but before + the range analysis). Constant tables are technically different from + eliminated ones (e.g. the former are shown in EXPLAIN and the latter aren't). + Considering we've already done the join_read_const_table() call, is there any + real difference between constant table and eliminated one? If there is, should + we mark const tables also as eliminated? -=-=(Psergey - Mon, 01 Jun 2009, 20:46)=-=- Low Level Design modified. --- /tmp/wklog.17.old.17448 2009-06-01 20:46:40.000000000 +0300 +++ /tmp/wklog.17.new.17448 2009-06-01 20:46:40.000000000 +0300 @@ -122,3 +122,9 @@ always. If we want table elimination to work in presence of grouping, need to devise some other way of analyzing aggregate functions. + +* Should eliminated tables be shown in EXPLAIN EXTENDED? + - If we just ignore the question, they will be shown + - this is what happens for constant tables, too. + - I don't see how showing them could be of any use. They only make it + harder to read the rewritten query. -=-=(Guest - Mon, 01 Jun 2009, 12:49)=-=- Low Level Design modified. --- /tmp/wklog.17.old.32202 2009-06-01 12:49:15.000000000 +0300 +++ /tmp/wklog.17.new.32202 2009-06-01 12:49:15.000000000 +0300 @@ -8,7 +8,7 @@ 6. Todo, issues to resolve 6.1 To resolve 6.2 Resolved - +7. Additional issues </contents> It's not really about elimination of tables, it's about elimination of inner @@ -116,3 +116,9 @@ * We remove ON clauses within semi-join nests. If these clauses contain subqueries, they probably should be gone from EXPLAIN output also? +* Aggregate functions report they depend on all tables, that is, + + item_agg_func->used_tables() == (1ULL << join->tables) - 1 + + always. If we want table elimination to work in presence of grouping, need + to devise some other way of analyzing aggregate functions. ------------------------------------------------------------ -=-=(View All Progress Notes, 25 total)=-=- http://askmonty.org/worklog/index.pl?tid=17&nolimit=1 DESCRIPTION: Eliminate not needed tables from SELECT queries.. This will speed up some views and automatically generated queries. Example: CREATE TABLE B (id int primary key); select A.colA from tableA A left outer join tableB B on B.id = A.id; In this case we can remove table B and the join from the query. HIGH-LEVEL SPECIFICATION: Here is an extended explanation of table elimination. Table elimination is a feature found in some modern query optimizers, of which Microsoft SQL Server 2005/2008 seems to have the most advanced implementation. Oracle 11g has also been confirmed to use table elimination but not to the same extent. Basically, what table elimination does, is to remove tables from the execution plan when it is unnecessary to include them. This can, of course, only happen if the right circumstances arise. Let us for example look at the following query: select A.colA from tableA A left outer join tableB B on B.id = A.id; When using A as the left table we ensure that the query will return at least as many rows as there are in that table. For rows where the join condition (B.id = A.id) is not met the selected column (A.colA) will still contain it's original value. The not seen B.* row would contain all NULL:s. However, the result set could actually contain more rows than what is found in tableA if there are duplicates of the column B.id in tableB. If A contains a row [1, "val1"] and B the rows [1, "other1a"],[1, "other1b"] then two rows will match in the join condition. The only way to know what the result will look like is to actually touch both tables during execution. Instead, let's say that tableB contains rows that make it possible to place a unique constraint on the column B.id, for example and often the case a primary key. In this situation we know that we will get exactly as many rows as there are in tableA, since joining with tableB cannot introduce any duplicates. If further, as in the example query, we do not select any columns from tableB, touching that table during execution is unnecessary. We can remove the whole join operation from the execution plan. Both SQL Server 2005/2008 and Oracle 11g will deploy table elimination in the case described above. Let us look at a more advanced query, where Oracle fails. select A.colA from tableA A left outer join tableB B on B.id = A.id and B.fromDate = ( select max(sub.fromDate) from tableB sub where sub.id = A.id ); In this example we have added another join condition, which ensures that we only pick the matching row from tableB having the latest fromDate. In this case tableB will contain duplicates of the column B.id, so in order to ensure uniqueness the primary key has to contain the fromDate column as well. In other words the primary key of tableB is (B.id, B.fromDate). Furthermore, since the subselect ensures that we only pick the latest B.fromDate for a given B.id we know that at most one row will match the join condition. We will again have the situation where joining with tableB cannot affect the number of rows in the result set. Since we do not select any columns from tableB, the whole join operation can be eliminated from the execution plan. SQL Server 2005/2008 will deploy table elimination in this situation as well. We have not found a way to make Oracle 11g use it for this type of query. Queries like these arise in two situations. Either when you have denormalized model consisting of a fact table with several related dimension tables, or when you have a highly normalized model where each attribute is stored in its own table. The example with the subselect is common whenever you store historized/versioned data. LOW-LEVEL DESIGN: The code (currently in development) is at lp: ~maria-captains/maria/maria-5.1-table-elimination tree. <contents> 1. Conditions for removal 1.1 Quick check if there are candidates 2. Removal operation properties 3. Removal operation 4. User interface 5. Tests and benchmarks 6. Todo, issues to resolve 6.1 To resolve 6.2 Resolved 7. Additional issues </contents> It's not really about elimination of tables, it's about elimination of inner sides of outer joins. 1. Conditions for removal ------------------------- We can eliminate an inner side of outer join if: 1. For each record combination of outer tables, it will always produce exactly one record. 2. There are no references to columns of the inner tables anywhere else in the query. #1 means that every table inside the outer join nest is: - is a constant table: = because it can be accessed via eq_ref(const) access, or = it is a zero-rows or one-row MyISAM-like table [MARK1] - has an eq_ref access method candidate. #2 means that WHERE clause, ON clauses of embedding outer joins, ORDER BY, GROUP BY and HAVING do not refer to the inner tables of the outer join nest. 1.1 Quick check if there are candidates ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Before we start to enumerate join nests, here is a quick way to check if there *can be* something to be removed: if ((tables used in select_list | tables used in group/order by UNION | tables used in where) != bitmap_of_all_tables) { attempt table elimination; } 2. Removal operation properties ------------------------------- * There is always one way to remove (no choice to remove either this or that) * It is always better to remove as much tables as possible (at least within our cost model). Thus, no need for any cost calculations/etc. It's an unconditional rewrite. 3. Removal operation -------------------- * Remove the outer join nest's nested join structure (i.e. get the outer join's TABLE_LIST object $OJ and remove it from $OJ->embedding, $OJ->embedding->nested_join. Update table_map's of all ancestor nested joins). [MARK2] * Move the tables and their JOIN_TABs to front like it is done with const tables, with exception that if eliminated outer join nest was within another outer join nest, that shouldn't prevent us from moving away the eliminated tables. * Update join->table_count and all-join-tables bitmap. * That's it. Nothing else? 4. User interface ----------------- * We'll add an @@optimizer switch flag for table elimination. Tentative name: 'table_elimination'. (Note ^^ utility of the above questioned ^, as table elimination can never be worse than no elimination. We're leaning towards not adding the flag) * EXPLAIN will not show the removed tables at all. This will allow to check if tables were removed, and also will behave nicely with anchor model and VIEWs: stuff that user doesn't care about just won't be there. 5. Tests and benchmarks ----------------------- Create a benchmark in sql-bench which checks if the DBMS has table elimination. [According to Monty] Run - queries that would use elimination - queries that are very similar to one above (so that they would have same QEP, execution cost, etc) but cannot use table elimination. then compare run times and make a conclusion about whether dbms supports table elimination. 6. Todo, issues to resolve -------------------------- 6.1 To resolve ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ - Relationship with prepared statements. On one hand, it's natural to desire to make table elimination a once-per-statement operation, like outer->inner join conversion. We'll have to limit the applicability by removing [MARK1] as that can change during lifetime of the statement. The other option is to do table elimination every time. This will require to rework operation [MARK2] to be undoable. I'm leaning towards doing the former. With anchor modeling, it is unlikely that we'll meet outer joins which have N inner tables of which some are 1-row MyISAM tables that do not have primary key. 6.2 Resolved ~~~~~~~~~~~~ * outer->inner join conversion is not a problem for table elimination. We make outer->inner conversions based on predicates in WHERE. If the WHERE referred to an inner table (requirement for OJ->IJ conversion) then table elimination would not be applicable anyway. * For Multi-table UPDATEs/DELETEs, need to also analyze the SET clause: - affected tables must not be eliminated - tables that are used on the right side of the SET x=y assignments must not be eliminated either. * Aggregate functions used to report that they depend on all tables, that is, item_agg_func->used_tables() == (1ULL << join->tables) - 1 always. Fixed it, now aggregate function reports it depends on tables that its arguments depend on. In particular, COUNT(*) reports that it depends on no tables (item_count_star->used_tables()==0). One consequence of that is that "item->used_tables()==0" is not equivalent to "item->const_item()==true" anymore (not sure if it's "anymore" or this has been already happening). * EXPLAIN EXTENDED warning text was generated after the JOIN object has been discarded. This didn't allow to use information about join plan when printing the warning. Fixed this by keeping the JOIN objects until we've printed the warning (have also an intent to remove the const tables from the join output). 7. Additional issues -------------------- * We remove ON clauses within outer join nests. If these clauses contain subqueries, they probably should be gone from EXPLAIN output also? Yes. Current approach: when removing an outer join nest, walk the ON clause and mark subselects as eliminated. Then let EXPLAIN code check if the SELECT was eliminated before the printing (EXPLAIN is generated by doing a recursive descent, so the check will also cause children of eliminated selects not to be printed) * Table elimination is performed after constant table detection (but before the range analysis). Constant tables are technically different from eliminated ones (e.g. the former are shown in EXPLAIN and the latter aren't). Considering we've already done the join_read_const_table() call, is there any real difference between constant table and eliminated one? If there is, should we mark const tables also as eliminated? from user/EXPLAIN point of view: no. constant table is the one that we read one record from. eliminated table is the one that we don't acccess at all. ESTIMATED WORK TIME ESTIMATED COMPLETION DATE ----------------------------------------------------------------------- WorkLog (v3.5.9)

1 0

[Maria-developers] Updated (by Guest): Table elimination (17)
by worklog-noreply＠askmonty.org 18 Jun '09

18 Jun '09

----------------------------------------------------------------------- WORKLOG TASK -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- TASK...........: Table elimination CREATION DATE..: Sun, 10 May 2009, 19:57 SUPERVISOR.....: Monty IMPLEMENTOR....: Psergey COPIES TO......: CATEGORY.......: Server-Sprint TASK ID........: 17 (http://askmonty.org/worklog/?tid=17) VERSION........: Server-5.1 STATUS.........: Assigned PRIORITY.......: 60 WORKED HOURS...: 0 ESTIMATE.......: 0 (hours remain) ORIG. ESTIMATE.: 0 PROGRESS NOTES: -=-=(Guest - Thu, 18 Jun 2009, 02:24)=-=- Low Level Design modified. --- /tmp/wklog.17.old.27162 2009-06-18 02:24:14.000000000 +0300 +++ /tmp/wklog.17.new.27162 2009-06-18 02:24:14.000000000 +0300 @@ -83,9 +83,12 @@ 5. Tests and benchmarks ----------------------- -Should create a benchmark in sql-bench which checks if the dbms has table +Create a benchmark in sql-bench which checks if the DBMS has table elimination. -TODO elaborate +[According to Monty] Run + - queries that would use elimination + - queries that are very similar to one above (so that they would have same + QEP, execution cost, etc) but cannot use table elimination. 6. Todo, issues to resolve -------------------------- @@ -109,33 +112,37 @@ 6.2 Resolved ~~~~~~~~~~~~ -- outer->inner join conversion is not a problem for table elimination. +* outer->inner join conversion is not a problem for table elimination. We make outer->inner conversions based on predicates in WHERE. If the WHERE referred to an inner table (requirement for OJ->IJ conversion) then table elimination would not be applicable anyway. -7. Additional issues --------------------- -* We remove ON clauses within semi-join nests. If these clauses contain - subqueries, they probably should be gone from EXPLAIN output also? +* For Multi-table UPDATEs/DELETEs, need to also analyze the SET clause: + - affected tables must not be eliminated + - tables that are used on the right side of the SET x=y assignments must + not be eliminated either. -* Aggregate functions report they depend on all tables, that is, +* Aggregate functions used to report that they depend on all tables, that is, item_agg_func->used_tables() == (1ULL << join->tables) - 1 - always. If we want table elimination to work in presence of grouping, need - to devise some other way of analyzing aggregate functions. + always. Fixed it, now aggregate function reports it depends on + tables that its arguments depend on. In particular, COUNT(*) reports + that it depends on no tables (item_count_star->used_tables()==0). + One consequence of that is that "item->used_tables()==0" is not + equivalent to "item->const_item()==true" anymore (not sure if it's + "anymore" or this has been already happening). + +* EXPLAIN EXTENDED warning text was generated after the JOIN object has + been discarded. This didn't allow to use information about join plan + when printing the warning. Fixed this by keeping the JOIN objects until + we've printed the warning (have also an intent to remove the const + tables from the join output). -* Should eliminated tables be shown in EXPLAIN EXTENDED? - - If we just ignore the question, they will be shown - - this is what happens for constant tables, too. - - I don't see how showing them could be of any use. They only make it - harder to read the rewritten query. - It turns out that - - it is easy to have EXPLAIN EXTENDED show permanent (once-per-statement - lifetime) changes. - - it is hard to have it show per-execution data. This is because the warning - text is generated after the execution structures have been destroyed. +7. Additional issues +-------------------- +* We remove ON clauses within semi-join nests. If these clauses contain + subqueries, they probably should be gone from EXPLAIN output also? * Table elimination is performed after constant table detection (but before the range analysis). Constant tables are technically different from @@ -143,8 +150,6 @@ Considering we've already done the join_read_const_table() call, is there any real difference between constant table and eliminated one? If there is, should we mark const tables also as eliminated? + from user/EXPLAIN point of view: no. constant table is the one that we read + one record from. eliminated table is the one that we don't acccess at all. -* For Multi-table UPDATEs/DELETEs, need to also analyze the SET clause: - - affected tables must not be eliminated - - tables that are used on the right side of the SET x=y assignments must - not be eliminated either. -=-=(Guest - Tue, 16 Jun 2009, 17:01)=-=- Dependency deleted: 29 no longer depends on 17 -=-=(Guest - Wed, 10 Jun 2009, 01:23)=-=- Low Level Design modified. --- /tmp/wklog.17.old.1842 2009-06-10 01:23:42.000000000 +0300 +++ /tmp/wklog.17.new.1842 2009-06-10 01:23:42.000000000 +0300 @@ -131,6 +131,11 @@ - this is what happens for constant tables, too. - I don't see how showing them could be of any use. They only make it harder to read the rewritten query. + It turns out that + - it is easy to have EXPLAIN EXTENDED show permanent (once-per-statement + lifetime) changes. + - it is hard to have it show per-execution data. This is because the warning + text is generated after the execution structures have been destroyed. * Table elimination is performed after constant table detection (but before the range analysis). Constant tables are technically different from -=-=(Guest - Wed, 03 Jun 2009, 22:01)=-=- Low Level Design modified. --- /tmp/wklog.17.old.21801 2009-06-03 22:01:34.000000000 +0300 +++ /tmp/wklog.17.new.21801 2009-06-03 22:01:34.000000000 +0300 @@ -1,3 +1,6 @@ +The code (currently in development) is at lp: +~maria-captains/maria/maria-5.1-table-elimination tree. + <contents> 1. Conditions for removal 1.1 Quick check if there are candidates -=-=(Guest - Wed, 03 Jun 2009, 15:04)=-=- Low Level Design modified. --- /tmp/wklog.17.old.20378 2009-06-03 15:04:54.000000000 +0300 +++ /tmp/wklog.17.new.20378 2009-06-03 15:04:54.000000000 +0300 @@ -135,3 +135,8 @@ Considering we've already done the join_read_const_table() call, is there any real difference between constant table and eliminated one? If there is, should we mark const tables also as eliminated? + +* For Multi-table UPDATEs/DELETEs, need to also analyze the SET clause: + - affected tables must not be eliminated + - tables that are used on the right side of the SET x=y assignments must + not be eliminated either. -=-=(Psergey - Wed, 03 Jun 2009, 12:07)=-=- Dependency created: 29 now depends on 17 -=-=(Guest - Tue, 02 Jun 2009, 00:54)=-=- Low Level Design modified. --- /tmp/wklog.17.old.23548 2009-06-02 00:54:13.000000000 +0300 +++ /tmp/wklog.17.new.23548 2009-06-02 00:54:13.000000000 +0300 @@ -128,3 +128,10 @@ - this is what happens for constant tables, too. - I don't see how showing them could be of any use. They only make it harder to read the rewritten query. + +* Table elimination is performed after constant table detection (but before + the range analysis). Constant tables are technically different from + eliminated ones (e.g. the former are shown in EXPLAIN and the latter aren't). + Considering we've already done the join_read_const_table() call, is there any + real difference between constant table and eliminated one? If there is, should + we mark const tables also as eliminated? -=-=(Psergey - Mon, 01 Jun 2009, 20:46)=-=- Low Level Design modified. --- /tmp/wklog.17.old.17448 2009-06-01 20:46:40.000000000 +0300 +++ /tmp/wklog.17.new.17448 2009-06-01 20:46:40.000000000 +0300 @@ -122,3 +122,9 @@ always. If we want table elimination to work in presence of grouping, need to devise some other way of analyzing aggregate functions. + +* Should eliminated tables be shown in EXPLAIN EXTENDED? + - If we just ignore the question, they will be shown + - this is what happens for constant tables, too. + - I don't see how showing them could be of any use. They only make it + harder to read the rewritten query. -=-=(Guest - Mon, 01 Jun 2009, 12:49)=-=- Low Level Design modified. --- /tmp/wklog.17.old.32202 2009-06-01 12:49:15.000000000 +0300 +++ /tmp/wklog.17.new.32202 2009-06-01 12:49:15.000000000 +0300 @@ -8,7 +8,7 @@ 6. Todo, issues to resolve 6.1 To resolve 6.2 Resolved - +7. Additional issues </contents> It's not really about elimination of tables, it's about elimination of inner @@ -116,3 +116,9 @@ * We remove ON clauses within semi-join nests. If these clauses contain subqueries, they probably should be gone from EXPLAIN output also? +* Aggregate functions report they depend on all tables, that is, + + item_agg_func->used_tables() == (1ULL << join->tables) - 1 + + always. If we want table elimination to work in presence of grouping, need + to devise some other way of analyzing aggregate functions. -=-=(Guest - Fri, 29 May 2009, 00:45)=-=- Low Level Design modified. --- /tmp/wklog.17.old.1348 2009-05-29 00:45:21.000000000 +0300 +++ /tmp/wklog.17.new.1348 2009-05-29 00:45:21.000000000 +0300 @@ -111,3 +111,8 @@ referred to an inner table (requirement for OJ->IJ conversion) then table elimination would not be applicable anyway. +7. Additional issues +-------------------- +* We remove ON clauses within semi-join nests. If these clauses contain + subqueries, they probably should be gone from EXPLAIN output also? + ------------------------------------------------------------ -=-=(View All Progress Notes, 24 total)=-=- http://askmonty.org/worklog/index.pl?tid=17&nolimit=1 DESCRIPTION: Eliminate not needed tables from SELECT queries.. This will speed up some views and automatically generated queries. Example: CREATE TABLE B (id int primary key); select A.colA from tableA A left outer join tableB B on B.id = A.id; In this case we can remove table B and the join from the query. HIGH-LEVEL SPECIFICATION: Here is an extended explanation of table elimination. Table elimination is a feature found in some modern query optimizers, of which Microsoft SQL Server 2005/2008 seems to have the most advanced implementation. Oracle 11g has also been confirmed to use table elimination but not to the same extent. Basically, what table elimination does, is to remove tables from the execution plan when it is unnecessary to include them. This can, of course, only happen if the right circumstances arise. Let us for example look at the following query: select A.colA from tableA A left outer join tableB B on B.id = A.id; When using A as the left table we ensure that the query will return at least as many rows as there are in that table. For rows where the join condition (B.id = A.id) is not met the selected column (A.colA) will still contain it's original value. The not seen B.* row would contain all NULL:s. However, the result set could actually contain more rows than what is found in tableA if there are duplicates of the column B.id in tableB. If A contains a row [1, "val1"] and B the rows [1, "other1a"],[1, "other1b"] then two rows will match in the join condition. The only way to know what the result will look like is to actually touch both tables during execution. Instead, let's say that tableB contains rows that make it possible to place a unique constraint on the column B.id, for example and often the case a primary key. In this situation we know that we will get exactly as many rows as there are in tableA, since joining with tableB cannot introduce any duplicates. If further, as in the example query, we do not select any columns from tableB, touching that table during execution is unnecessary. We can remove the whole join operation from the execution plan. Both SQL Server 2005/2008 and Oracle 11g will deploy table elimination in the case described above. Let us look at a more advanced query, where Oracle fails. select A.colA from tableA A left outer join tableB B on B.id = A.id and B.fromDate = ( select max(sub.fromDate) from tableB sub where sub.id = A.id ); In this example we have added another join condition, which ensures that we only pick the matching row from tableB having the latest fromDate. In this case tableB will contain duplicates of the column B.id, so in order to ensure uniqueness the primary key has to contain the fromDate column as well. In other words the primary key of tableB is (B.id, B.fromDate). Furthermore, since the subselect ensures that we only pick the latest B.fromDate for a given B.id we know that at most one row will match the join condition. We will again have the situation where joining with tableB cannot affect the number of rows in the result set. Since we do not select any columns from tableB, the whole join operation can be eliminated from the execution plan. SQL Server 2005/2008 will deploy table elimination in this situation as well. We have not found a way to make Oracle 11g use it for this type of query. Queries like these arise in two situations. Either when you have denormalized model consisting of a fact table with several related dimension tables, or when you have a highly normalized model where each attribute is stored in its own table. The example with the subselect is common whenever you store historized/versioned data. LOW-LEVEL DESIGN: The code (currently in development) is at lp: ~maria-captains/maria/maria-5.1-table-elimination tree. <contents> 1. Conditions for removal 1.1 Quick check if there are candidates 2. Removal operation properties 3. Removal operation 4. User interface 5. Tests and benchmarks 6. Todo, issues to resolve 6.1 To resolve 6.2 Resolved 7. Additional issues </contents> It's not really about elimination of tables, it's about elimination of inner sides of outer joins. 1. Conditions for removal ------------------------- We can eliminate an inner side of outer join if: 1. For each record combination of outer tables, it will always produce exactly one record. 2. There are no references to columns of the inner tables anywhere else in the query. #1 means that every table inside the outer join nest is: - is a constant table: = because it can be accessed via eq_ref(const) access, or = it is a zero-rows or one-row MyISAM-like table [MARK1] - has an eq_ref access method candidate. #2 means that WHERE clause, ON clauses of embedding outer joins, ORDER BY, GROUP BY and HAVING do not refer to the inner tables of the outer join nest. 1.1 Quick check if there are candidates ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Before we start to enumerate join nests, here is a quick way to check if there *can be* something to be removed: if ((tables used in select_list | tables used in group/order by UNION | tables used in where) != bitmap_of_all_tables) { attempt table elimination; } 2. Removal operation properties ------------------------------- * There is always one way to remove (no choice to remove either this or that) * It is always better to remove as much tables as possible (at least within our cost model). Thus, no need for any cost calculations/etc. It's an unconditional rewrite. 3. Removal operation -------------------- * Remove the outer join nest's nested join structure (i.e. get the outer join's TABLE_LIST object $OJ and remove it from $OJ->embedding, $OJ->embedding->nested_join. Update table_map's of all ancestor nested joins). [MARK2] * Move the tables and their JOIN_TABs to front like it is done with const tables, with exception that if eliminated outer join nest was within another outer join nest, that shouldn't prevent us from moving away the eliminated tables. * Update join->table_count and all-join-tables bitmap. * That's it. Nothing else? 4. User interface ----------------- * We'll add an @@optimizer switch flag for table elimination. Tentative name: 'table_elimination'. (Note ^^ utility of the above questioned ^, as table elimination can never be worse than no elimination. We're leaning towards not adding the flag) * EXPLAIN will not show the removed tables at all. This will allow to check if tables were removed, and also will behave nicely with anchor model and VIEWs: stuff that user doesn't care about just won't be there. 5. Tests and benchmarks ----------------------- Create a benchmark in sql-bench which checks if the DBMS has table elimination. [According to Monty] Run - queries that would use elimination - queries that are very similar to one above (so that they would have same QEP, execution cost, etc) but cannot use table elimination. 6. Todo, issues to resolve -------------------------- 6.1 To resolve ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ - Re-check how this works with equality propagation. - Relationship with prepared statements. On one hand, it's natural to desire to make table elimination a once-per-statement operation, like outer->inner join conversion. We'll have to limit the applicability by removing [MARK1] as that can change during lifetime of the statement. The other option is to do table elimination every time. This will require to rework operation [MARK2] to be undoable. I'm leaning towards doing the former. With anchor modeling, it is unlikely that we'll meet outer joins which have N inner tables of which some are 1-row MyISAM tables that do not have primary key. 6.2 Resolved ~~~~~~~~~~~~ * outer->inner join conversion is not a problem for table elimination. We make outer->inner conversions based on predicates in WHERE. If the WHERE referred to an inner table (requirement for OJ->IJ conversion) then table elimination would not be applicable anyway. * For Multi-table UPDATEs/DELETEs, need to also analyze the SET clause: - affected tables must not be eliminated - tables that are used on the right side of the SET x=y assignments must not be eliminated either. * Aggregate functions used to report that they depend on all tables, that is, item_agg_func->used_tables() == (1ULL << join->tables) - 1 always. Fixed it, now aggregate function reports it depends on tables that its arguments depend on. In particular, COUNT(*) reports that it depends on no tables (item_count_star->used_tables()==0). One consequence of that is that "item->used_tables()==0" is not equivalent to "item->const_item()==true" anymore (not sure if it's "anymore" or this has been already happening). * EXPLAIN EXTENDED warning text was generated after the JOIN object has been discarded. This didn't allow to use information about join plan when printing the warning. Fixed this by keeping the JOIN objects until we've printed the warning (have also an intent to remove the const tables from the join output). 7. Additional issues -------------------- * We remove ON clauses within semi-join nests. If these clauses contain subqueries, they probably should be gone from EXPLAIN output also? * Table elimination is performed after constant table detection (but before the range analysis). Constant tables are technically different from eliminated ones (e.g. the former are shown in EXPLAIN and the latter aren't). Considering we've already done the join_read_const_table() call, is there any real difference between constant table and eliminated one? If there is, should we mark const tables also as eliminated? from user/EXPLAIN point of view: no. constant table is the one that we read one record from. eliminated table is the one that we don't acccess at all. ESTIMATED WORK TIME ESTIMATED COMPLETION DATE ----------------------------------------------------------------------- WorkLog (v3.5.9)

1 0

[Maria-developers] Updated (by Guest): Table elimination (17)
by worklog-noreply＠askmonty.org 18 Jun '09

18 Jun '09

----------------------------------------------------------------------- WORKLOG TASK -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- TASK...........: Table elimination CREATION DATE..: Sun, 10 May 2009, 19:57 SUPERVISOR.....: Monty IMPLEMENTOR....: Psergey COPIES TO......: CATEGORY.......: Server-Sprint TASK ID........: 17 (http://askmonty.org/worklog/?tid=17) VERSION........: Server-5.1 STATUS.........: Assigned PRIORITY.......: 60 WORKED HOURS...: 0 ESTIMATE.......: 0 (hours remain) ORIG. ESTIMATE.: 0 PROGRESS NOTES: -=-=(Guest - Thu, 18 Jun 2009, 02:24)=-=- Low Level Design modified. --- /tmp/wklog.17.old.27162 2009-06-18 02:24:14.000000000 +0300 +++ /tmp/wklog.17.new.27162 2009-06-18 02:24:14.000000000 +0300 @@ -83,9 +83,12 @@ 5. Tests and benchmarks ----------------------- -Should create a benchmark in sql-bench which checks if the dbms has table +Create a benchmark in sql-bench which checks if the DBMS has table elimination. -TODO elaborate +[According to Monty] Run + - queries that would use elimination + - queries that are very similar to one above (so that they would have same + QEP, execution cost, etc) but cannot use table elimination. 6. Todo, issues to resolve -------------------------- @@ -109,33 +112,37 @@ 6.2 Resolved ~~~~~~~~~~~~ -- outer->inner join conversion is not a problem for table elimination. +* outer->inner join conversion is not a problem for table elimination. We make outer->inner conversions based on predicates in WHERE. If the WHERE referred to an inner table (requirement for OJ->IJ conversion) then table elimination would not be applicable anyway. -7. Additional issues --------------------- -* We remove ON clauses within semi-join nests. If these clauses contain - subqueries, they probably should be gone from EXPLAIN output also? +* For Multi-table UPDATEs/DELETEs, need to also analyze the SET clause: + - affected tables must not be eliminated + - tables that are used on the right side of the SET x=y assignments must + not be eliminated either. -* Aggregate functions report they depend on all tables, that is, +* Aggregate functions used to report that they depend on all tables, that is, item_agg_func->used_tables() == (1ULL << join->tables) - 1 - always. If we want table elimination to work in presence of grouping, need - to devise some other way of analyzing aggregate functions. + always. Fixed it, now aggregate function reports it depends on + tables that its arguments depend on. In particular, COUNT(*) reports + that it depends on no tables (item_count_star->used_tables()==0). + One consequence of that is that "item->used_tables()==0" is not + equivalent to "item->const_item()==true" anymore (not sure if it's + "anymore" or this has been already happening). + +* EXPLAIN EXTENDED warning text was generated after the JOIN object has + been discarded. This didn't allow to use information about join plan + when printing the warning. Fixed this by keeping the JOIN objects until + we've printed the warning (have also an intent to remove the const + tables from the join output). -* Should eliminated tables be shown in EXPLAIN EXTENDED? - - If we just ignore the question, they will be shown - - this is what happens for constant tables, too. - - I don't see how showing them could be of any use. They only make it - harder to read the rewritten query. - It turns out that - - it is easy to have EXPLAIN EXTENDED show permanent (once-per-statement - lifetime) changes. - - it is hard to have it show per-execution data. This is because the warning - text is generated after the execution structures have been destroyed. +7. Additional issues +-------------------- +* We remove ON clauses within semi-join nests. If these clauses contain + subqueries, they probably should be gone from EXPLAIN output also? * Table elimination is performed after constant table detection (but before the range analysis). Constant tables are technically different from @@ -143,8 +150,6 @@ Considering we've already done the join_read_const_table() call, is there any real difference between constant table and eliminated one? If there is, should we mark const tables also as eliminated? + from user/EXPLAIN point of view: no. constant table is the one that we read + one record from. eliminated table is the one that we don't acccess at all. -* For Multi-table UPDATEs/DELETEs, need to also analyze the SET clause: - - affected tables must not be eliminated - - tables that are used on the right side of the SET x=y assignments must - not be eliminated either. -=-=(Guest - Tue, 16 Jun 2009, 17:01)=-=- Dependency deleted: 29 no longer depends on 17 -=-=(Guest - Wed, 10 Jun 2009, 01:23)=-=- Low Level Design modified. --- /tmp/wklog.17.old.1842 2009-06-10 01:23:42.000000000 +0300 +++ /tmp/wklog.17.new.1842 2009-06-10 01:23:42.000000000 +0300 @@ -131,6 +131,11 @@ - this is what happens for constant tables, too. - I don't see how showing them could be of any use. They only make it harder to read the rewritten query. + It turns out that + - it is easy to have EXPLAIN EXTENDED show permanent (once-per-statement + lifetime) changes. + - it is hard to have it show per-execution data. This is because the warning + text is generated after the execution structures have been destroyed. * Table elimination is performed after constant table detection (but before the range analysis). Constant tables are technically different from -=-=(Guest - Wed, 03 Jun 2009, 22:01)=-=- Low Level Design modified. --- /tmp/wklog.17.old.21801 2009-06-03 22:01:34.000000000 +0300 +++ /tmp/wklog.17.new.21801 2009-06-03 22:01:34.000000000 +0300 @@ -1,3 +1,6 @@ +The code (currently in development) is at lp: +~maria-captains/maria/maria-5.1-table-elimination tree. + <contents> 1. Conditions for removal 1.1 Quick check if there are candidates -=-=(Guest - Wed, 03 Jun 2009, 15:04)=-=- Low Level Design modified. --- /tmp/wklog.17.old.20378 2009-06-03 15:04:54.000000000 +0300 +++ /tmp/wklog.17.new.20378 2009-06-03 15:04:54.000000000 +0300 @@ -135,3 +135,8 @@ Considering we've already done the join_read_const_table() call, is there any real difference between constant table and eliminated one? If there is, should we mark const tables also as eliminated? + +* For Multi-table UPDATEs/DELETEs, need to also analyze the SET clause: + - affected tables must not be eliminated + - tables that are used on the right side of the SET x=y assignments must + not be eliminated either. -=-=(Psergey - Wed, 03 Jun 2009, 12:07)=-=- Dependency created: 29 now depends on 17 -=-=(Guest - Tue, 02 Jun 2009, 00:54)=-=- Low Level Design modified. --- /tmp/wklog.17.old.23548 2009-06-02 00:54:13.000000000 +0300 +++ /tmp/wklog.17.new.23548 2009-06-02 00:54:13.000000000 +0300 @@ -128,3 +128,10 @@ - this is what happens for constant tables, too. - I don't see how showing them could be of any use. They only make it harder to read the rewritten query. + +* Table elimination is performed after constant table detection (but before + the range analysis). Constant tables are technically different from + eliminated ones (e.g. the former are shown in EXPLAIN and the latter aren't). + Considering we've already done the join_read_const_table() call, is there any + real difference between constant table and eliminated one? If there is, should + we mark const tables also as eliminated? -=-=(Psergey - Mon, 01 Jun 2009, 20:46)=-=- Low Level Design modified. --- /tmp/wklog.17.old.17448 2009-06-01 20:46:40.000000000 +0300 +++ /tmp/wklog.17.new.17448 2009-06-01 20:46:40.000000000 +0300 @@ -122,3 +122,9 @@ always. If we want table elimination to work in presence of grouping, need to devise some other way of analyzing aggregate functions. + +* Should eliminated tables be shown in EXPLAIN EXTENDED? + - If we just ignore the question, they will be shown + - this is what happens for constant tables, too. + - I don't see how showing them could be of any use. They only make it + harder to read the rewritten query. -=-=(Guest - Mon, 01 Jun 2009, 12:49)=-=- Low Level Design modified. --- /tmp/wklog.17.old.32202 2009-06-01 12:49:15.000000000 +0300 +++ /tmp/wklog.17.new.32202 2009-06-01 12:49:15.000000000 +0300 @@ -8,7 +8,7 @@ 6. Todo, issues to resolve 6.1 To resolve 6.2 Resolved - +7. Additional issues </contents> It's not really about elimination of tables, it's about elimination of inner @@ -116,3 +116,9 @@ * We remove ON clauses within semi-join nests. If these clauses contain subqueries, they probably should be gone from EXPLAIN output also? +* Aggregate functions report they depend on all tables, that is, + + item_agg_func->used_tables() == (1ULL << join->tables) - 1 + + always. If we want table elimination to work in presence of grouping, need + to devise some other way of analyzing aggregate functions. -=-=(Guest - Fri, 29 May 2009, 00:45)=-=- Low Level Design modified. --- /tmp/wklog.17.old.1348 2009-05-29 00:45:21.000000000 +0300 +++ /tmp/wklog.17.new.1348 2009-05-29 00:45:21.000000000 +0300 @@ -111,3 +111,8 @@ referred to an inner table (requirement for OJ->IJ conversion) then table elimination would not be applicable anyway. +7. Additional issues +-------------------- +* We remove ON clauses within semi-join nests. If these clauses contain + subqueries, they probably should be gone from EXPLAIN output also? + ------------------------------------------------------------ -=-=(View All Progress Notes, 24 total)=-=- http://askmonty.org/worklog/index.pl?tid=17&nolimit=1 DESCRIPTION: Eliminate not needed tables from SELECT queries.. This will speed up some views and automatically generated queries. Example: CREATE TABLE B (id int primary key); select A.colA from tableA A left outer join tableB B on B.id = A.id; In this case we can remove table B and the join from the query. HIGH-LEVEL SPECIFICATION: Here is an extended explanation of table elimination. Table elimination is a feature found in some modern query optimizers, of which Microsoft SQL Server 2005/2008 seems to have the most advanced implementation. Oracle 11g has also been confirmed to use table elimination but not to the same extent. Basically, what table elimination does, is to remove tables from the execution plan when it is unnecessary to include them. This can, of course, only happen if the right circumstances arise. Let us for example look at the following query: select A.colA from tableA A left outer join tableB B on B.id = A.id; When using A as the left table we ensure that the query will return at least as many rows as there are in that table. For rows where the join condition (B.id = A.id) is not met the selected column (A.colA) will still contain it's original value. The not seen B.* row would contain all NULL:s. However, the result set could actually contain more rows than what is found in tableA if there are duplicates of the column B.id in tableB. If A contains a row [1, "val1"] and B the rows [1, "other1a"],[1, "other1b"] then two rows will match in the join condition. The only way to know what the result will look like is to actually touch both tables during execution. Instead, let's say that tableB contains rows that make it possible to place a unique constraint on the column B.id, for example and often the case a primary key. In this situation we know that we will get exactly as many rows as there are in tableA, since joining with tableB cannot introduce any duplicates. If further, as in the example query, we do not select any columns from tableB, touching that table during execution is unnecessary. We can remove the whole join operation from the execution plan. Both SQL Server 2005/2008 and Oracle 11g will deploy table elimination in the case described above. Let us look at a more advanced query, where Oracle fails. select A.colA from tableA A left outer join tableB B on B.id = A.id and B.fromDate = ( select max(sub.fromDate) from tableB sub where sub.id = A.id ); In this example we have added another join condition, which ensures that we only pick the matching row from tableB having the latest fromDate. In this case tableB will contain duplicates of the column B.id, so in order to ensure uniqueness the primary key has to contain the fromDate column as well. In other words the primary key of tableB is (B.id, B.fromDate). Furthermore, since the subselect ensures that we only pick the latest B.fromDate for a given B.id we know that at most one row will match the join condition. We will again have the situation where joining with tableB cannot affect the number of rows in the result set. Since we do not select any columns from tableB, the whole join operation can be eliminated from the execution plan. SQL Server 2005/2008 will deploy table elimination in this situation as well. We have not found a way to make Oracle 11g use it for this type of query. Queries like these arise in two situations. Either when you have denormalized model consisting of a fact table with several related dimension tables, or when you have a highly normalized model where each attribute is stored in its own table. The example with the subselect is common whenever you store historized/versioned data. LOW-LEVEL DESIGN: The code (currently in development) is at lp: ~maria-captains/maria/maria-5.1-table-elimination tree. <contents> 1. Conditions for removal 1.1 Quick check if there are candidates 2. Removal operation properties 3. Removal operation 4. User interface 5. Tests and benchmarks 6. Todo, issues to resolve 6.1 To resolve 6.2 Resolved 7. Additional issues </contents> It's not really about elimination of tables, it's about elimination of inner sides of outer joins. 1. Conditions for removal ------------------------- We can eliminate an inner side of outer join if: 1. For each record combination of outer tables, it will always produce exactly one record. 2. There are no references to columns of the inner tables anywhere else in the query. #1 means that every table inside the outer join nest is: - is a constant table: = because it can be accessed via eq_ref(const) access, or = it is a zero-rows or one-row MyISAM-like table [MARK1] - has an eq_ref access method candidate. #2 means that WHERE clause, ON clauses of embedding outer joins, ORDER BY, GROUP BY and HAVING do not refer to the inner tables of the outer join nest. 1.1 Quick check if there are candidates ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Before we start to enumerate join nests, here is a quick way to check if there *can be* something to be removed: if ((tables used in select_list | tables used in group/order by UNION | tables used in where) != bitmap_of_all_tables) { attempt table elimination; } 2. Removal operation properties ------------------------------- * There is always one way to remove (no choice to remove either this or that) * It is always better to remove as much tables as possible (at least within our cost model). Thus, no need for any cost calculations/etc. It's an unconditional rewrite. 3. Removal operation -------------------- * Remove the outer join nest's nested join structure (i.e. get the outer join's TABLE_LIST object $OJ and remove it from $OJ->embedding, $OJ->embedding->nested_join. Update table_map's of all ancestor nested joins). [MARK2] * Move the tables and their JOIN_TABs to front like it is done with const tables, with exception that if eliminated outer join nest was within another outer join nest, that shouldn't prevent us from moving away the eliminated tables. * Update join->table_count and all-join-tables bitmap. * That's it. Nothing else? 4. User interface ----------------- * We'll add an @@optimizer switch flag for table elimination. Tentative name: 'table_elimination'. (Note ^^ utility of the above questioned ^, as table elimination can never be worse than no elimination. We're leaning towards not adding the flag) * EXPLAIN will not show the removed tables at all. This will allow to check if tables were removed, and also will behave nicely with anchor model and VIEWs: stuff that user doesn't care about just won't be there. 5. Tests and benchmarks ----------------------- Create a benchmark in sql-bench which checks if the DBMS has table elimination. [According to Monty] Run - queries that would use elimination - queries that are very similar to one above (so that they would have same QEP, execution cost, etc) but cannot use table elimination. 6. Todo, issues to resolve -------------------------- 6.1 To resolve ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ - Re-check how this works with equality propagation. - Relationship with prepared statements. On one hand, it's natural to desire to make table elimination a once-per-statement operation, like outer->inner join conversion. We'll have to limit the applicability by removing [MARK1] as that can change during lifetime of the statement. The other option is to do table elimination every time. This will require to rework operation [MARK2] to be undoable. I'm leaning towards doing the former. With anchor modeling, it is unlikely that we'll meet outer joins which have N inner tables of which some are 1-row MyISAM tables that do not have primary key. 6.2 Resolved ~~~~~~~~~~~~ * outer->inner join conversion is not a problem for table elimination. We make outer->inner conversions based on predicates in WHERE. If the WHERE referred to an inner table (requirement for OJ->IJ conversion) then table elimination would not be applicable anyway. * For Multi-table UPDATEs/DELETEs, need to also analyze the SET clause: - affected tables must not be eliminated - tables that are used on the right side of the SET x=y assignments must not be eliminated either. * Aggregate functions used to report that they depend on all tables, that is, item_agg_func->used_tables() == (1ULL << join->tables) - 1 always. Fixed it, now aggregate function reports it depends on tables that its arguments depend on. In particular, COUNT(*) reports that it depends on no tables (item_count_star->used_tables()==0). One consequence of that is that "item->used_tables()==0" is not equivalent to "item->const_item()==true" anymore (not sure if it's "anymore" or this has been already happening). * EXPLAIN EXTENDED warning text was generated after the JOIN object has been discarded. This didn't allow to use information about join plan when printing the warning. Fixed this by keeping the JOIN objects until we've printed the warning (have also an intent to remove the const tables from the join output). 7. Additional issues -------------------- * We remove ON clauses within semi-join nests. If these clauses contain subqueries, they probably should be gone from EXPLAIN output also? * Table elimination is performed after constant table detection (but before the range analysis). Constant tables are technically different from eliminated ones (e.g. the former are shown in EXPLAIN and the latter aren't). Considering we've already done the join_read_const_table() call, is there any real difference between constant table and eliminated one? If there is, should we mark const tables also as eliminated? from user/EXPLAIN point of view: no. constant table is the one that we read one record from. eliminated table is the one that we don't acccess at all. ESTIMATED WORK TIME ESTIMATED COMPLETION DATE ----------------------------------------------------------------------- WorkLog (v3.5.9)

1 0

[Maria-developers] bzr commit into MariaDB 5.1, with Maria 1.5:maria branch (psergey:2717)
by Sergey Petrunia 17 Jun '09

17 Jun '09

#At lp:maria based on revid:psergey@askmonty.org-20090616204358-yjkyfxczsomrn9yn 2717 Sergey Petrunia 2009-06-17 * Use excessive parentheses to stop compiler warning * Fix test results to account for changes in previous cset modified: mysql-test/r/select.result sql/sql_select.cc per-file messages: mysql-test/r/select.result * Use excessive parentheses to stop compiler warning * Fix test results to account for changes in previous cset sql/sql_select.cc * Use excessive parentheses to stop compiler warning * Fix test results to account for changes in previous cset === modified file 'mysql-test/r/select.result' --- a/mysql-test/r/select.result 2009-03-16 05:02:10 +0000 +++ b/mysql-test/r/select.result 2009-06-17 05:27:39 +0000 @@ -3585,7 +3585,6 @@ INSERT INTO t2 VALUES (1,'a'),(2,'b'),(3 EXPLAIN SELECT t1.a FROM t1 LEFT JOIN t2 ON t2.b=t1.b WHERE t1.a=3; id select_type table type possible_keys key key_len ref rows Extra 1 SIMPLE t1 const PRIMARY PRIMARY 4 const 1 -1 SIMPLE t2 const b b 22 const 1 Using index DROP TABLE t1,t2; CREATE TABLE t1(id int PRIMARY KEY, b int, e int); CREATE TABLE t2(i int, a int, INDEX si(i), INDEX ai(a)); === modified file 'sql/sql_select.cc' --- a/sql/sql_select.cc 2009-06-16 19:54:13 +0000 +++ b/sql/sql_select.cc 2009-06-17 05:27:39 +0000 @@ -16963,9 +16963,9 @@ static void print_join(THD *thd, CREATE VIEW. There we'll have nested_join->used_tables==0. */ if (eliminated_tables && // (*) - (curr->table && (curr->table->map & eliminated_tables) || - curr->nested_join && !(curr->nested_join->used_tables & - ~eliminated_tables))) + ((curr->table && (curr->table->map & eliminated_tables)) || + (curr->nested_join && !(curr->nested_join->used_tables & + ~eliminated_tables)))) { continue; }

1 0

[Maria-developers] bzr commit into MariaDB 5.1, with Maria 1.5:maria branch (psergey:2716)
by Sergey Petrunia 16 Jun '09

16 Jun '09

#At lp:maria based on revid:psergey@askmonty.org-20090616195413-rfmi9un20za8gn8g 2716 Sergey Petrunia 2009-06-17 [merge] * Merge * Change valgrind suppression to work on valgrind 3.3.0 modified: mysql-test/valgrind.supp per-file messages: mysql-test/valgrind.supp * Merge * Change valgrind suppression to work on valgrind 3.3.0 === modified file 'mysql-test/valgrind.supp' --- a/mysql-test/valgrind.supp 2009-05-22 12:38:50 +0000 +++ b/mysql-test/valgrind.supp 2009-06-16 20:43:58 +0000 @@ -631,3 +631,73 @@ fun:malloc fun:inet_ntoa } + + +# +# Some problem inside glibc on Ubuntu 9.04, x86 (but not amd64): +# +# ==5985== 19 bytes in 1 blocks are still reachable in loss record 1 of 6 +# ==5985== at 0x7AF3FDE: malloc (vg_replace_malloc.c:207) +# ... 11,12, or 13 functions w/o symbols ... +# ==5985== by 0x8717185: nptl_pthread_exit_hack_handler (my_thr_init.c:55) +# +# Since valgrind 3.3.0 doesn't support '...' multi-function pattern, using +# multiple suppressions: +# +{ + Mem loss inside nptl_pthread_exit_hack_handler + Memcheck:Leak + fun:* + fun:* + fun:* + fun:* + fun:* + fun:* + fun:* + fun:* + fun:* + fun:* + fun:* + fun:* + fun:nptl_pthread_exit_hack_handler +} + +{ + Mem loss inside nptl_pthread_exit_hack_handler + Memcheck:Leak + fun:* + fun:* + fun:* + fun:* + fun:* + fun:* + fun:* + fun:* + fun:* + fun:* + fun:* + fun:* + fun:* + fun:nptl_pthread_exit_hack_handler +} + +{ + Mem loss inside nptl_pthread_exit_hack_handler + Memcheck:Leak + fun:* + fun:* + fun:* + fun:* + fun:* + fun:* + fun:* + fun:* + fun:* + fun:* + fun:* + fun:* + fun:* + fun:* + fun:nptl_pthread_exit_hack_handler +} +

1 0

[Maria-developers] bzr commit into MariaDB 5.1, with Maria 1.5:maria branch (psergey:2715)
by Sergey Petrunia 16 Jun '09

16 Jun '09

#At lp:maria based on revid:psergey@askmonty.org-20090614205924-1vnfwbuo4brzyfhp 2715 Sergey Petrunia 2009-06-16 MWL#17: Table elimination - Move eliminate_tables() to before constant table detection. - First code for benchmark added: sql-bench/test-table-elimination.sh modified: sql/sql_select.cc per-file messages: sql-bench/test-table-elimination.sh MWL#17: Table elimination - sql-bench "Benchmark", incomplete sql/sql_select.cc MWL#17: Table elimination - Move eliminate_tables() to before constant table detection, this will allow to spare const table reads (at a cost of not being able to take advantage of tables that are constant because they have no records, but this case is of lesser importance) === added file 'sql-bench/test-table-elimination.sh' --- a/sql-bench/test-table-elimination.sh 1970-01-01 00:00:00 +0000 +++ b/sql-bench/test-table-elimination.sh 2009-06-16 19:54:13 +0000 @@ -0,0 +1,320 @@ +#!@PERL@ +# Test of table elimination feature + +use Cwd; +use DBI; +use Getopt::Long; +use Benchmark; + +$opt_loop_count=100000; +$opt_medium_loop_count=10000; +$opt_small_loop_count=100; + +$pwd = cwd(); $pwd = "." if ($pwd eq ''); +require "$pwd/bench-init.pl" || die "Can't read Configuration file: $!\n"; + +if ($opt_small_test) +{ + $opt_loop_count/=10; + $opt_medium_loop_count/=10; + $opt_small_loop_count/=10; +} + +print "Testing table elimination feature\n"; +print "The test table has $opt_loop_count rows.\n\n"; + +# A query to get the recent versions of all attributes: +$select_current_full_facts=" + select + F.id, A1.attr1, A2.attr2 + from + elim_facts F + left join elim_attr1 A1 on A1.id=F.id + left join elim_attr2 A2 on A2.id=F.id and + A2.fromdate=(select MAX(fromdate) from + elim_attr2 where id=A2.id); +"; +$select_current_full_facts=" + select + F.id, A1.attr1, A2.attr2 + from + elim_facts F + left join elim_attr1 A1 on A1.id=F.id + left join elim_attr2 A2 on A2.id=F.id and + A2.fromdate=(select MAX(fromdate) from + elim_attr2 where id=F.id); +"; +# TODO: same as above but for some given date also? +# TODO: + + +#### +#### Connect and start timeing +#### + +$dbh = $server->connect(); +$start_time=new Benchmark; + +#### +#### Create needed tables +#### + +goto select_test if ($opt_skip_create); + +print "Creating tables\n"; +$dbh->do("drop table elim_facts" . $server->{'drop_attr'}); +$dbh->do("drop table elim_attr1" . $server->{'drop_attr'}); +$dbh->do("drop table elim_attr2" . $server->{'drop_attr'}); + +# The facts table +do_many($dbh,$server->create("elim_facts", + ["id integer"], + ["primary key (id)"])); + +# Attribute1, non-versioned +do_many($dbh,$server->create("elim_attr1", + ["id integer", + "attr1 integer"], + ["primary key (id)", + "key (attr1)"])); + +# Attribute1, time-versioned +do_many($dbh,$server->create("elim_attr2", + ["id integer", + "attr2 integer", + "fromdate date"], + ["primary key (id, fromdate)", + "key (attr2,fromdate)"])); + +#NOTE: ignoring: if ($limits->{'views'}) +$dbh->do("drop view elim_current_facts"); +$dbh->do("create view elim_current_facts as $select_current_full_facts"); + +if ($opt_lock_tables) +{ + do_query($dbh,"LOCK TABLES elim_facts, elim_attr1, elim_attr2 WRITE"); +} + +if ($opt_fast && defined($server->{vacuum})) +{ + $server->vacuum(1,\$dbh); +} + +#### +#### Fill the facts table +#### +$n_facts= $opt_loop_count; + +if ($opt_fast && $server->{transactions}) +{ + $dbh->{AutoCommit} = 0; +} + +print "Inserting $n_facts rows into facts table\n"; +$loop_time=new Benchmark; + +$query="insert into elim_facts values ("; +for ($id=0; $id < $n_facts ; $id++) +{ + do_query($dbh,"$query $id)"); +} + +if ($opt_fast && $server->{transactions}) +{ + $dbh->commit; + $dbh->{AutoCommit} = 1; +} + +$end_time=new Benchmark; +print "Time to insert ($n_facts): " . + timestr(timediff($end_time, $loop_time),"all") . "\n\n"; + +#### +#### Fill attr1 table +#### +if ($opt_fast && $server->{transactions}) +{ + $dbh->{AutoCommit} = 0; +} + +print "Inserting $n_facts rows into attr1 table\n"; +$loop_time=new Benchmark; + +$query="insert into elim_attr1 values ("; +for ($id=0; $id < $n_facts ; $id++) +{ + $attr1= ceil(rand($n_facts)); + do_query($dbh,"$query $id, $attr1)"); +} + +if ($opt_fast && $server->{transactions}) +{ + $dbh->commit; + $dbh->{AutoCommit} = 1; +} + +$end_time=new Benchmark; +print "Time to insert ($n_facts): " . + timestr(timediff($end_time, $loop_time),"all") . "\n\n"; + +#### +#### Fill attr2 table +#### +if ($opt_fast && $server->{transactions}) +{ + $dbh->{AutoCommit} = 0; +} + +print "Inserting $n_facts rows into attr2 table\n"; +$loop_time=new Benchmark; + +for ($id=0; $id < $n_facts ; $id++) +{ + # Two values for each $id - current one and obsolete one. + $attr1= ceil(rand($n_facts)); + $query="insert into elim_attr2 values ($id, $attr1, now())"; + do_query($dbh,$query); + $query="insert into elim_attr2 values ($id, $attr1, '2009-01-01')"; + do_query($dbh,$query); +} + +if ($opt_fast && $server->{transactions}) +{ + $dbh->commit; + $dbh->{AutoCommit} = 1; +} + +$end_time=new Benchmark; +print "Time to insert ($n_facts): " . + timestr(timediff($end_time, $loop_time),"all") . "\n\n"; + +#### +#### Finalize the database population +#### + +if ($opt_lock_tables) +{ + do_query($dbh,"UNLOCK TABLES"); +} + +if ($opt_fast && defined($server->{vacuum})) +{ + $server->vacuum(0,\$dbh,["elim_facts", "elim_attr1", "elim_attr2"]); +} + +if ($opt_lock_tables) +{ + do_query($dbh,"LOCK TABLES elim_facts, elim_attr1, elim_attr2 WRITE"); +} + +#### +#### Do some selects on the table +#### + +select_test: + +# +# The selects will be: +# - N pk-lookups with all attributes +# - pk-attribute-based lookup +# - latest-attribute value based lookup. + + +### +### Bare facts select: +### +print "testing bare facts facts table\n"; +$loop_time=new Benchmark; +$rows=0; +for ($i=0 ; $i < $opt_medium_loop_count ; $i++) +{ + $val= ceil(rand($n_facts)); + $rows+=fetch_all_rows($dbh,"select * from elim_facts where id=$val"); +} +$count=$i; + +$end_time=new Benchmark; +print "time for select_bare_facts ($count:$rows): " . + timestr(timediff($end_time, $loop_time),"all") . "\n"; + + +### +### Full facts select, no elimination: +### +print "testing full facts facts table\n"; +$loop_time=new Benchmark; +$rows=0; +for ($i=0 ; $i < $opt_medium_loop_count ; $i++) +{ + $val= rand($n_facts); + $rows+=fetch_all_rows($dbh,"select * from elim_current_facts where id=$val"); +} +$count=$i; + +$end_time=new Benchmark; +print "time for select_two_attributes ($count:$rows): " . + timestr(timediff($end_time, $loop_time),"all") . "\n"; + +### +### Now with elimination: select only only one fact +### +print "testing selection of one attribute\n"; +$loop_time=new Benchmark; +$rows=0; +for ($i=0 ; $i < $opt_medium_loop_count ; $i++) +{ + $val= rand($n_facts); + $rows+=fetch_all_rows($dbh,"select id, attr1 from elim_current_facts where id=$val"); +} +$count=$i; + +$end_time=new Benchmark; +print "time for select_one_attribute ($count:$rows): " . + timestr(timediff($end_time, $loop_time),"all") . "\n"; + +### +### Now with elimination: select only only one fact +### +print "testing selection of one attribute\n"; +$loop_time=new Benchmark; +$rows=0; +for ($i=0 ; $i < $opt_medium_loop_count ; $i++) +{ + $val= rand($n_facts); + $rows+=fetch_all_rows($dbh,"select id, attr2 from elim_current_facts where id=$val"); +} +$count=$i; + +$end_time=new Benchmark; +print "time for select_one_attribute ($count:$rows): " . + timestr(timediff($end_time, $loop_time),"all") . "\n"; + + +### +### TODO... +### + +; + +#### +#### End of benchmark +#### + +if ($opt_lock_tables) +{ + do_query($dbh,"UNLOCK TABLES"); +} +if (!$opt_skip_delete) +{ + do_query($dbh,"drop table elim_facts, elim_attr1, elim_attr2" . $server->{'drop_attr'}); +} + +if ($opt_fast && defined($server->{vacuum})) +{ + $server->vacuum(0,\$dbh); +} + +$dbh->disconnect; # close connection + +end_benchmark($start_time); + === modified file 'sql/sql_select.cc' --- a/sql/sql_select.cc 2009-06-14 20:59:24 +0000 +++ b/sql/sql_select.cc 2009-06-16 19:54:13 +0000 @@ -2959,22 +2959,28 @@ make_join_statistics(JOIN *join, TABLE_L /* Read tables with 0 or 1 rows (system tables) */ join->const_table_map= 0; + + eliminate_tables(join, &const_count, &found_const_table_map); + join->const_table_map= found_const_table_map; for (POSITION *p_pos=join->positions, *p_end=p_pos+const_count; p_pos < p_end ; p_pos++) { - int tmp; s= p_pos->table; - s->type=JT_SYSTEM; - join->const_table_map|=s->table->map; - if ((tmp=join_read_const_table(s, p_pos))) + if (! (s->table->map & join->eliminated_tables)) { - if (tmp > 0) - goto error; // Fatal error + int tmp; + s->type=JT_SYSTEM; + join->const_table_map|=s->table->map; + if ((tmp=join_read_const_table(s, p_pos))) + { + if (tmp > 0) + goto error; // Fatal error + } + else + found_const_table_map|= s->table->map; } - else - found_const_table_map|= s->table->map; } /* loop until no more const tables are found */ @@ -2999,7 +3005,8 @@ make_join_statistics(JOIN *join, TABLE_L substitution of a const table the key value happens to be null then we can state that there are no matches for this equi-join. */ - if ((keyuse= s->keyuse) && *s->on_expr_ref && !s->embedding_map) + if ((keyuse= s->keyuse) && *s->on_expr_ref && !s->embedding_map && + !(table->map & join->eliminated_tables)) { /* When performing an outer join operation if there are no matching rows @@ -3135,7 +3142,7 @@ make_join_statistics(JOIN *join, TABLE_L } //psergey-todo: table elimination - eliminate_tables(join, &const_count, &found_const_table_map); + //eliminate_tables(join, &const_count, &found_const_table_map); //:psergey-todo /* Calc how many (possible) matched records in each table */ @@ -16517,7 +16524,7 @@ static void select_describe(JOIN *join, quick_type= -1; - //psergey-todo: + /* Don't show eliminated tables */ if (table->map & join->eliminated_tables) { used_tables|=table->map;

1 0

[Maria-developers] Updated (by Guest): Backporting pool of threads to MariaDB (6)
by worklog-noreply＠askmonty.org 15 Jun '09

15 Jun '09

----------------------------------------------------------------------- WORKLOG TASK -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- TASK...........: Backporting pool of threads to MariaDB CREATION DATE..: Mon, 09 Mar 2009, 17:21 SUPERVISOR.....: Monty IMPLEMENTOR....: Monty COPIES TO......: Monty CATEGORY.......: Server-Sprint TASK ID........: 6 (http://askmonty.org/worklog/?tid=6) VERSION........: Server-9.x STATUS.........: Complete PRIORITY.......: 60 WORKED HOURS...: 0 ESTIMATE.......: 8 (hours remain) ORIG. ESTIMATE.: 8 PROGRESS NOTES: -=-=(Guest - Mon, 15 Jun 2009, 22:06)=-=- Version updated. --- /tmp/wklog.6.old.487 2009-06-15 22:06:59.000000000 +0300 +++ /tmp/wklog.6.new.487 2009-06-15 22:06:59.000000000 +0300 @@ -1 +1 @@ -WorkLog-3.4 +Server-9.x -=-=(Guest - Tue, 21 Apr 2009, 16:39)=-=- Version updated. --- /tmp/wklog.6.old.24673 2009-04-21 16:39:20.000000000 +0300 +++ /tmp/wklog.6.new.24673 2009-04-21 16:39:20.000000000 +0300 @@ -1 +1 @@ -Server-5.1 +WorkLog-3.4 -=-=(Monty - Thu, 26 Mar 2009, 00:32)=-=- Privacy level updated. --- /tmp/wklog.6.old.6586 2009-03-26 00:32:23.000000000 +0200 +++ /tmp/wklog.6.new.6586 2009-03-26 00:32:23.000000000 +0200 @@ -1 +1 @@ -y +n -=-=(Monty - Thu, 26 Mar 2009, 00:31)=-=- Supervisor updated. --- /tmp/wklog.6.old.6580 2009-03-26 00:31:30.000000000 +0200 +++ /tmp/wklog.6.new.6580 2009-03-26 00:31:30.000000000 +0200 @@ -1 +1 @@ -Knielsen +Monty -=-=(Monty - Fri, 13 Mar 2009, 02:43)=-=- Low Level Design modified. --- /tmp/wklog.6.old.26076 2009-03-13 02:43:17.000000000 +0200 +++ /tmp/wklog.6.new.26076 2009-03-13 02:43:17.000000000 +0200 @@ -1 +1,20 @@ +To be able to work with both one-thread-per-connection and pool-of-threads at +the same time, I added a new global scheduler variable 'extra_thread_scheduler' +that is always using the one-thread-per-connection method. + +To the THD structure was added a pointer to the 'scheduler' variable that should +be used for this connection. + +To do easy handing of two connect counter and two max_connection variables, I +added pointer to these pointer in the scheduler variable.: + +Other changes was: + +- If extra-port was <> 0, start listing to this port too +- At connect time, set THD->scheduler to point to the given scheduler (based on +the port that was used to connect) +- Change some calls that was done trough functions pointer in the scheduler to +instead use thd->scheduler-> +- Change max_connections to *thd->scheduler->max_connections +- Change connection_count to *thd->scheduler->connection_count -=-=(Monty - Fri, 13 Mar 2009, 02:29)=-=- Version updated. --- /tmp/wklog.6.old.25818 2009-03-13 02:29:16.000000000 +0200 +++ /tmp/wklog.6.new.25818 2009-03-13 02:29:16.000000000 +0200 @@ -1 +1 @@ -Server-9.x +Server-5.1 -=-=(Monty - Fri, 13 Mar 2009, 02:29)=-=- Status updated. --- /tmp/wklog.6.old.25818 2009-03-13 02:29:16.000000000 +0200 +++ /tmp/wklog.6.new.25818 2009-03-13 02:29:16.000000000 +0200 @@ -1 +1 @@ -Assigned +Complete -=-=(Monty - Fri, 13 Mar 2009, 02:28)=-=- High Level Description modified. --- /tmp/wklog.6.old.25790 2009-03-13 02:28:25.000000000 +0200 +++ /tmp/wklog.6.new.25790 2009-03-13 02:28:25.000000000 +0200 @@ -8,3 +8,6 @@ Add option --extra-port to allow connections with old one-thread-per-connection method. This is needed to allow root to login and kill threads if something goes wrong. +Add option --extra-max-connections to regulate how many connections can be made +to 'extra-port'. This should work in a similar way as 'max-connections', in the +way that one connection is reserved for a SUPER user. -=-=(Knielsen - Mon, 09 Mar 2009, 19:02)=-=- Version updated. --- /tmp/wklog.6.old.10740 2009-03-09 19:02:38.000000000 +0200 +++ /tmp/wklog.6.new.10740 2009-03-09 19:02:38.000000000 +0200 @@ -1 +1 @@ -WorkLog-3.4 +Server-9.x -=-=(Knielsen - Mon, 09 Mar 2009, 19:02)=-=- Title modified. --- /tmp/wklog.6.old.10740 2009-03-09 19:02:38.000000000 +0200 +++ /tmp/wklog.6.new.10740 2009-03-09 19:02:38.000000000 +0200 @@ -1 +1 @@ -Backporting pool of threads tro MariaDB +Backporting pool of threads to MariaDB DESCRIPTION: Back porting pool of threads to MariaDB We will use code for Maria 6.0, with the following extensions: Add option: --test-ignore-wrong-options to ignore errors in enum values for testing pool-of-threads. (Better than having --pool-of-threads command line option just for testing) Add option --extra-port to allow connections with old one-thread-per-connection method. This is needed to allow root to login and kill threads if something goes wrong. Add option --extra-max-connections to regulate how many connections can be made to 'extra-port'. This should work in a similar way as 'max-connections', in the way that one connection is reserved for a SUPER user. LOW-LEVEL DESIGN: To be able to work with both one-thread-per-connection and pool-of-threads at the same time, I added a new global scheduler variable 'extra_thread_scheduler' that is always using the one-thread-per-connection method. To the THD structure was added a pointer to the 'scheduler' variable that should be used for this connection. To do easy handing of two connect counter and two max_connection variables, I added pointer to these pointer in the scheduler variable.: Other changes was: - If extra-port was <> 0, start listing to this port too - At connect time, set THD->scheduler to point to the given scheduler (based on the port that was used to connect) - Change some calls that was done trough functions pointer in the scheduler to instead use thd->scheduler-> - Change max_connections to *thd->scheduler->max_connections - Change connection_count to *thd->scheduler->connection_count ESTIMATED WORK TIME ESTIMATED COMPLETION DATE ----------------------------------------------------------------------- WorkLog (v3.5.9)

1 0

[Maria-developers] bzr commit into MariaDB 5.1, with Maria 1.5:maria branch (psergey:2715)
by Sergey Petrunia 15 Jun '09

15 Jun '09

#At lp:maria based on revid:psergey@askmonty.org-20090614205924-1vnfwbuo4brzyfhp 2715 Sergey Petrunia 2009-06-15 Fix spurious valgrind warnings in rpl_trigger.test modified: mysql-test/valgrind.supp per-file messages: mysql-test/valgrind.supp Fix spurious valgrind warnings in rpl_trigger.test === modified file 'mysql-test/valgrind.supp' --- a/mysql-test/valgrind.supp 2009-05-22 12:38:50 +0000 +++ b/mysql-test/valgrind.supp 2009-06-15 16:22:08 +0000 @@ -631,3 +631,13 @@ fun:malloc fun:inet_ntoa } + +# +# Some problem inside glibc on Ubuntu 9.04, x86 (but not amd64) +# +{ + Mem loss inside nptl_pthread_exit_hack_handler + Memcheck:Leak + ... + fun:nptl_pthread_exit_hack_handler +}

1 0

[Maria-developers] bzr commit into MariaDB 5.1, with Maria 1.5:maria branch (knielsen:2713)
by knielsen＠knielsen-hq.org 15 Jun '09

15 Jun '09

#At lp:maria 2713 knielsen(a)knielsen-hq.org 2009-06-15 Cherry-pick revid:psergey@askmonty.org-20090608135546-ut1yrzbah4gdw6e6 from Sergey's table-elimination branch to get a clean Valgrind. added: strings/strmov_overlapp.c modified: include/m_string.h libmysql/Makefile.shared strings/Makefile.am === modified file 'include/m_string.h' --- a/include/m_string.h 2009-05-06 12:03:24 +0000 +++ b/include/m_string.h 2009-06-15 11:01:35 +0000 @@ -98,7 +98,8 @@ extern const double log_10[309]; #ifdef BAD_STRING_COMPILER #define strmov(A,B) (memccpy(A,B,0,INT_MAX)-1) #else -#define strmov_overlapp(A,B) strmov(A,B) +extern char *strmov_overlapp(char *dest, const char *src); +/* Warning: the following is likely not to work: */ #define strmake_overlapp(A,B,C) strmake(A,B,C) #endif === modified file 'libmysql/Makefile.shared' --- a/libmysql/Makefile.shared 2008-04-28 16:24:05 +0000 +++ b/libmysql/Makefile.shared 2009-06-15 11:01:35 +0000 @@ -46,7 +46,8 @@ mystringsobjects = strmov.lo strxmov.lo ctype-win1250ch.lo ctype-utf8.lo ctype-extra.lo \ ctype-ucs2.lo ctype-gb2312.lo ctype-gbk.lo \ ctype-sjis.lo ctype-tis620.lo ctype-ujis.lo \ - ctype-uca.lo xml.lo my_strtoll10.lo str_alloc.lo + ctype-uca.lo xml.lo my_strtoll10.lo str_alloc.lo \ + strmov_overlapp.lo mystringsextra= strto.c dbugobjects = dbug.lo # IT IS IN SAFEMALLOC.C sanity.lo === modified file 'strings/Makefile.am' --- a/strings/Makefile.am 2009-03-24 13:58:52 +0000 +++ b/strings/Makefile.am 2009-06-15 11:01:35 +0000 @@ -21,19 +21,19 @@ pkglib_LIBRARIES = libmystrings.a # Exact one of ASSEMBLER_X if ASSEMBLER_x86 ASRCS = strings-x86.s longlong2str-x86.s my_strtoll10-x86.s -CSRCS = bfill.c bmove.c bmove512.c bchange.c strxnmov.c int2str.c str2int.c r_strinstr.c strtod.c bcmp.c strtol.c strtoul.c strtoll.c strtoull.c llstr.c strnlen.c ctype.c ctype-simple.c ctype-mb.c ctype-big5.c ctype-cp932.c ctype-czech.c ctype-eucjpms.c ctype-euc_kr.c ctype-gb2312.c ctype-gbk.c ctype-sjis.c ctype-tis620.c ctype-ujis.c ctype-utf8.c ctype-ucs2.c ctype-uca.c ctype-win1250ch.c ctype-bin.c ctype-latin1.c my_vsnprintf.c xml.c decimal.c ctype-extra.c str_alloc.c longlong2str_asm.c my_strchr.c +CSRCS = bfill.c bmove.c bmove512.c bchange.c strxnmov.c int2str.c str2int.c r_strinstr.c strtod.c bcmp.c strtol.c strtoul.c strtoll.c strtoull.c llstr.c strnlen.c ctype.c ctype-simple.c ctype-mb.c ctype-big5.c ctype-cp932.c ctype-czech.c ctype-eucjpms.c ctype-euc_kr.c ctype-gb2312.c ctype-gbk.c ctype-sjis.c ctype-tis620.c ctype-ujis.c ctype-utf8.c ctype-ucs2.c ctype-uca.c ctype-win1250ch.c ctype-bin.c ctype-latin1.c my_vsnprintf.c xml.c decimal.c ctype-extra.c str_alloc.c longlong2str_asm.c my_strchr.c strmov_overlapp.c else if ASSEMBLER_sparc32 # These file MUST all be on the same line!! Otherwise automake # generats a very broken makefile ASRCS = bmove_upp-sparc.s strappend-sparc.s strend-sparc.s strinstr-sparc.s strmake-sparc.s strmov-sparc.s strnmov-sparc.s strstr-sparc.s -CSRCS = strcont.c strfill.c strcend.c is_prefix.c longlong2str.c bfill.c bmove.c bmove512.c bchange.c strxnmov.c int2str.c str2int.c r_strinstr.c strtod.c bcmp.c strtol.c strtoul.c strtoll.c strtoull.c llstr.c strnlen.c strxmov.c ctype.c ctype-simple.c ctype-mb.c ctype-big5.c ctype-cp932.c ctype-czech.c ctype-eucjpms.c ctype-euc_kr.c ctype-gb2312.c ctype-gbk.c ctype-sjis.c ctype-tis620.c ctype-ujis.c ctype-utf8.c ctype-ucs2.c ctype-uca.c ctype-win1250ch.c ctype-bin.c ctype-latin1.c my_vsnprintf.c xml.c decimal.c ctype-extra.c my_strtoll10.c str_alloc.c my_strchr.c +CSRCS = strcont.c strfill.c strcend.c is_prefix.c longlong2str.c bfill.c bmove.c bmove512.c bchange.c strxnmov.c int2str.c str2int.c r_strinstr.c strtod.c bcmp.c strtol.c strtoul.c strtoll.c strtoull.c llstr.c strnlen.c strxmov.c ctype.c ctype-simple.c ctype-mb.c ctype-big5.c ctype-cp932.c ctype-czech.c ctype-eucjpms.c ctype-euc_kr.c ctype-gb2312.c ctype-gbk.c ctype-sjis.c ctype-tis620.c ctype-ujis.c ctype-utf8.c ctype-ucs2.c ctype-uca.c ctype-win1250ch.c ctype-bin.c ctype-latin1.c my_vsnprintf.c xml.c decimal.c ctype-extra.c my_strtoll10.c str_alloc.c my_strchr.c strmov_overlapp.c else #no assembler ASRCS = # These file MUST all be on the same line!! Otherwise automake # generats a very broken makefile -CSRCS = strxmov.c bmove_upp.c strappend.c strcont.c strend.c strfill.c strcend.c is_prefix.c strstr.c strinstr.c strmake.c strnmov.c strmov.c longlong2str.c bfill.c bmove.c bmove512.c bchange.c strxnmov.c int2str.c str2int.c r_strinstr.c strtod.c bcmp.c strtol.c strtoul.c strtoll.c strtoull.c llstr.c strnlen.c ctype.c ctype-simple.c ctype-mb.c ctype-big5.c ctype-cp932.c ctype-czech.c ctype-eucjpms.c ctype-euc_kr.c ctype-gb2312.c ctype-gbk.c ctype-sjis.c ctype-tis620.c ctype-ujis.c ctype-utf8.c ctype-ucs2.c ctype-uca.c ctype-win1250ch.c ctype-bin.c ctype-latin1.c my_vsnprintf.c xml.c decimal.c ctype-extra.c my_strtoll10.c str_alloc.c my_strchr.c +CSRCS = strxmov.c bmove_upp.c strappend.c strcont.c strend.c strfill.c strcend.c is_prefix.c strstr.c strinstr.c strmake.c strnmov.c strmov.c longlong2str.c bfill.c bmove.c bmove512.c bchange.c strxnmov.c int2str.c str2int.c r_strinstr.c strtod.c bcmp.c strtol.c strtoul.c strtoll.c strtoull.c llstr.c strnlen.c ctype.c ctype-simple.c ctype-mb.c ctype-big5.c ctype-cp932.c ctype-czech.c ctype-eucjpms.c ctype-euc_kr.c ctype-gb2312.c ctype-gbk.c ctype-sjis.c ctype-tis620.c ctype-ujis.c ctype-utf8.c ctype-ucs2.c ctype-uca.c ctype-win1250ch.c ctype-bin.c ctype-latin1.c my_vsnprintf.c xml.c decimal.c ctype-extra.c my_strtoll10.c str_alloc.c my_strchr.c strmov_overlapp.c endif endif @@ -54,7 +54,7 @@ EXTRA_DIST = ctype-big5.c ctype-cp932.c strinstr-sparc.s strmake-sparc.s strmov-sparc.s \ strnmov-sparc.s strstr-sparc.s strxmov-sparc.s \ t_ctype.h my_strchr.c CMakeLists.txt \ - CHARSET_INFO.txt + CHARSET_INFO.txt strmov_overlapp.c libmystrings_a_LIBADD= conf_to_src_SOURCES = conf_to_src.c xml.c ctype.c bcmp.c === added file 'strings/strmov_overlapp.c' --- a/strings/strmov_overlapp.c 1970-01-01 00:00:00 +0000 +++ b/strings/strmov_overlapp.c 2009-06-15 11:01:35 +0000 @@ -0,0 +1,26 @@ +/* Copyright (C) 2000 MySQL AB + + This program is free software; you can redistribute it and/or modify + it under the terms of the GNU General Public License as published by + the Free Software Foundation; version 2 of the License. + + This program is distributed in the hope that it will be useful, + but WITHOUT ANY WARRANTY; without even the implied warranty of + MERCHANTABILITY or FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE. See the + GNU General Public License for more details. + + You should have received a copy of the GNU General Public License + along with this program; if not, write to the Free Software + Foundation, Inc., 59 Temple Place, Suite 330, Boston, MA 02111-1307 USA */ + +#include <my_global.h> +#include "m_string.h" + +/* A trivial implementation */ +char *strmov_overlapp(char *dst, const char *src) +{ + size_t len= strlen(src); + memmove(dst, src, len+1); + return dst+len; +} +

1 0