Skip to content

MDEV-37070 per-index adaptive hash index parameters#4507

Open
dr-m wants to merge 2 commits intomainfrom
MDEV-37070
Open

MDEV-37070 per-index adaptive hash index parameters#4507
dr-m wants to merge 2 commits intomainfrom
MDEV-37070

Conversation

@dr-m
Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

@dr-m dr-m commented Jan 2, 2026

  • The Jira issue number for this PR is: MDEV-37070

Description

This is based on work by @montywi. Some InnoDB changes will be needed, as noted in MDEV-37070.

Release Notes

TBD

How can this PR be tested?

mysql-test/mtr innodb.index_ahi_option

Basing the PR against the correct MariaDB version

  • This is a new feature or a refactoring, and the PR is based against the main branch.
  • This is a bug fix, and the PR is based against the earliest maintained branch in which the bug can be reproduced.

PR quality check

  • I checked the CODING_STANDARDS.md file and my PR conforms to this where appropriate.
  • For any trivial modifications to the PR, I am ok with the reviewer making the changes themselves.

@dr-m dr-m self-assigned this Jan 2, 2026
@CLAassistant
Copy link
Copy Markdown

CLAassistant commented Jan 2, 2026

CLA assistant check
Thank you for your submission! We really appreciate it. Like many open source projects, we ask that you all sign our Contributor License Agreement before we can accept your contribution.
0 out of 2 committers have signed the CLA.

❌ iMineLink
❌ montywi
You have signed the CLA already but the status is still pending? Let us recheck it.

@dr-m
Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor Author

dr-m commented Jan 19, 2026

index_ahi_option,if_specified is failing:

innodb.index_ahi_option 'if_specified'   w4 [ fail ]
        Test ended at 2026-01-16 19:56:06
CURRENT_TEST: innodb.index_ahi_option
--- /home/buildbot/aarch64-ubuntu-2204/build/mysql-test/suite/innodb/r/index_ahi_option,if_specified.result~	2026-01-16 19:56:04.298783865 +0000
+++ /home/buildbot/aarch64-ubuntu-2204/build/mysql-test/suite/innodb/r/index_ahi_option,if_specified.reject	2026-01-16 19:56:05.598796791 +0000
@@ -42,7 +42,7 @@
 ALTER TABLE t1 adaptive_hash_index='ON';
 # Warming up AHI
 # Warmed up AHI
-# Used AHI in SELECT (idx_1)
+# No AHI used in SELECT (idx_1)
 # Used AHI in SELECT (idx_2)
 # No AHI used in SELECT (idx_3)
 DROP TABLE t1;
Result length mismatch
 - saving '/home/buildbot/aarch64-ubuntu-2204/build/mysql-test/var/4/log/innodb.index_ahi_option-if_specified/' to '/home/buildbot/aarch64-ubuntu-2204/build/mysql-test/var/log/innodb.index_ahi_option-if_specified/'
…
innodb.index_ahi_option 'if_specified'   w4 [ retry-pass ]   1326
…
innodb.index_ahi_option 'if_specified'   w4 [ retry-pass ]   1228

@iMineLink
Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

Yes, the combinations if_specified and ahi have ~1% failure rate, tested locally.
I'm monitoring the builbot failures as well here.
Via innodb_metrics usage in index_ahi_option, there are no false positive at least, so the no_ahi combination is not failing locally nor in the buildbot.

I'm tuning the test.
This patch moves the failure rate in the 0.1% range (last hunk is a leftover fix):

diff --git a/mysql-test/suite/innodb/t/index_ahi_option.test b/mysql-test/suite/innodb/t/index_ahi_option.test
index 5b86c2a250d..7c92eab581e 100644
--- a/mysql-test/suite/innodb/t/index_ahi_option.test
+++ b/mysql-test/suite/innodb/t/index_ahi_option.test
@@ -46,8 +46,8 @@ INSERT INTO t1 VALUES (50001, 50, 1, 1), (50002, 50, 2, 2),
 --echo #
 
 SET GLOBAL innodb_monitor_enable = module_adaptive_hash;
-let $warm_up_rounds= 200;
-let $query_rounds= 10;
+let $warm_up_rounds= 0;
+let $query_rounds= 140;
 
 --echo # Warming up AHI
 let $i = $warm_up_rounds;
@@ -194,7 +194,7 @@ let $val0 = $val1;
 ALTER TABLE t1 adaptive_hash_index='ON';
 
 --echo # Warming up AHI
-let $i = 200;
+let $i = $warm_up_rounds;
 while ($i)
 {
   --disable_query_log

I'll run again the tests with $warm_up_rounds= 0 and $query_rounds= 200 to see if I get no failures in 10k runs locally.
But I'm unsure of the source of the variability and therefore unsure if the approach is sound (if it's only statistically OK, it will fail someday).
For testing the other per-index parameters, I think I will resort to some DBUG_EXECUTE_IF utilities around btr_search_info_update_hash, to guarantee no wrong parameters will slip out of the function, but I'm trying to sort out the existing index_ahi_option test first.

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor Author

@dr-m dr-m left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

It’s a great idea to combine several fields into a single 32-bit atomic field. But, some "pretty" code can actually result in some quite ugly machine code (with conditional branches).

- bit 23: fields valid
- bit 24: bytes valid
- bit 25: left valid
- bits [26, 31]: spare (6 bits)
Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

It could be better to allocate something useful (such as part of the enabled/disabled preference) at the most significant bit. For example, on x86, the test instruction would allow the most significant bit to be copied to a flag.

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

I kept this as is in the last version, since I did not want to change too much the new inline bool is_enabled(const dict_index_t *index) const noexcept logic. Is this acceptable?

@iMineLink iMineLink force-pushed the MDEV-37070 branch 3 times, most recently from e445a83 to 769793f Compare January 27, 2026 12:39
@dr-m dr-m requested a review from Thirunarayanan February 20, 2026 07:40
@dr-m dr-m marked this pull request as ready for review February 20, 2026 07:40
@iMineLink
Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

All the commits have been squashed into one with description updated accordingly.
While doing that, I realized that there is a TODO in the original commit message that may have been overlooked:

Check in buf0buff.cc buf_pool_t::resize(). The first call to
      btr_search.enable will never happen as ahi_disabled is always 0
      here.

@Thirunarayanan I believe review can start anyway since there's a lot to cover, I'll address the TODO and ping you when it's done if you agree. Thanks.

@iMineLink iMineLink force-pushed the MDEV-37070 branch 2 times, most recently from fbdc7b9 to 67a57fc Compare February 23, 2026 14:50
@iMineLink
Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

@Thirunarayanan the TODO has been addressed by adding a comment in buf_pool_t::resize around the interested variable, which was also renamed, and a debug assertion in btr_sea::enable, no changes to the previous logic seemed to be required. I believe this is now fully ready for review.

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Member

@Thirunarayanan Thirunarayanan left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Few test case scenarios are missing

  1. ALTER TABLE AHI=0 with concurrent AHI Access
  2. Buffer pool resize with ahi setting change
  3. Crash recovery with ahi just to see how it retains for the table metadata
  4. AHI in partition table
  5. Verify altering ahi is instant DDL
  6. Boundary check for complete_fields, bytes_from_incomplete_fields


innobase_copy_frm_flags_from_table_share(
ctx->new_table, altered_table->s);
innobase_copy_frm_flags_from_table(
Copy link
Copy Markdown
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

IIUC, alter table ahi=0 is no rebuild operation. When do we drop ahi entries of the indexes if we disable ahi for the table? Do we do it lazily somewhere? Since it is commit phase, there will be no other thread will read from ahi at this point

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

@iMineLink iMineLink Mar 12, 2026

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Current behavior will keep the entries in the buffer pool until the pages are evicted.
In btr_search_update_hash_on_insert(), the stale entries will still be updated, unless we add check that btr_search.is_enabled(index) in the early return path:

  if (!index)
    return;

Currently, the tests run ALTER TABLE with ALGORITHM=INSTANT, LOCK=NONE, for example:

ALTER TABLE t1 adaptive_hash_index=OFF, ALGORITHM=INSTANT, LOCK=NONE;

If we drop the AHI entries on ALTER TABLE, it may delay the DDL execution, but will clean earlier the buffer pool and AHI partition.
I suppose the change in btr_search_update_hash_on_insert() may be implemented anyway.
What is the preferred way to proceed here?

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

4f12d3c added early return in btr_search_update_hash_on_insert() if the AHI index is disabled for the index, preventing maintenance for indices that won't use the AHI.

@param innodb_table InnoDB table definition
@param option_struct MariaDB table options
@param table MariaDB table handle */
static void innodb_ahi_enable(dict_table_t *innodb_table,
Copy link
Copy Markdown
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Are we missing the boundary check like

CREATE TABLE t1 (
  id INT PRIMARY KEY,
  col1 VARCHAR(100),
  INDEX idx3 (col1)
    complete_fields=0
    bytes_from_incomplete_field=0
) ENGINE=InnoDB;

Why complete_fields and bytes_from_incomplete_field is 0?

CREATE TABLE t2 (
  id INT PRIMARY KEY,
  col1 INT,
  INDEX idx2 (col1)
    complete_fields=5
) ENGINE=InnoDB;

Even though index has 1 field. We should also check whether bytes_from_incomplete_field is used when complete_field + 1 exist. Does it make sense to use bytes_from_incomplete_field for integer? (should we restrict bytes_from_incomplete_field to text, varchar, blob, varbinary?)

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

@iMineLink iMineLink Mar 12, 2026

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

There is a test in index_ahi_option_debug.test that the complete_fields=0 bytes_from_incomplete_field=0 results in no AHI usage:

ALTER TABLE t1_ahi_yes ADD INDEX idx_6 (col2, col1) complete_fields=0 bytes_from_incomplete_field=0 for_equal_hash_point_to_last_record=0;
ALTER TABLE t1_ahi_yes ADD INDEX idx_7 (col3, col2) complete_fields=0 bytes_from_incomplete_field=0 for_equal_hash_point_to_last_record=1;
...
CALL run_and_check_idx(240, 6, 't1_ahi_yes');
result_msg
# No AHI used in SELECT (idx_6)
CALL run_and_check_idx(240, 7, 't1_ahi_yes');
result_msg
# No AHI used in SELECT (idx_7)

However, you are right that we can disable the AHI earlier to avoid useless runtime overhead. It's a useless combination.
In the same test, combinations the exceed the valid boundaries are tested as well:

ALTER TABLE t1_ahi_yes ADD INDEX idx_4 (col2) complete_fields=2;
ALTER TABLE t1_ahi_yes ADD INDEX idx_5 (col3) bytes_from_incomplete_field=5;
...
CALL run_and_check_idx(240, 4, 't1_ahi_yes');
result_msg
# No AHI used in SELECT (idx_4)
CALL run_and_check_idx(240, 5, 't1_ahi_yes');
result_msg
# No AHI used in SELECT (idx_5)
...

It seems those result in no AHI usage as well.

innodb_ahi_enable() is void, it may be complex to propagate a failure to the caller.
What could be done, is adjusting the values internally in innodb_ahi_enable(), to not provide "extra" fields/bytes nor useless combination complete_fields=0 bytes_from_incomplete_field=0 to btr_search_info_update_hash(), I'll check it.
I think that using bytes_from_incomplete_field for integer may be interesting if one only wants to hash the high bytes (big endian storage), which is a strange use case, but legit.

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

4f12d3c adds self-correction of the options in innodb_ahi_enable(). The only option which is not corrected is bytes_from_incomplete_field when referring to a valid field exceeding its width, since rec_fold() is already clamping the n_bytes value to the maximum allowed.

@iMineLink
Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

Please note that there are some mroonga related failures introduced by this PR that need to be addressed before merging.

montywi and others added 2 commits April 14, 2026 09:49
Added ADAPTIVE_HASH_INDEX=DEFAULT|YES|NO table and index option to InnoDB.
The table and index options only have an effect if InnoDB adaptive hash
index feature is enabled.

- Having the ADAPTIVE_HASH_INDEX TABLE option set to NO will disable
  adaptive hash index for all indexes in the table that does not have
  the index option adaptive_hash_index=yes.
- Having the ADAPTIVE_HASH_INDEX TABLE option set to YES will enable the
  adaptive hash index for all indexes in the table that does not have
  the index option adaptive_hash_index=no.
- Using adaptive_hash_index=default deletes the old setting.
- One can also use OFF/ON as the options. This is to make it work similar
  as other existing options.
- innodb.adaptive_hash_index has been changed from a bool to an enum with
  values OFF, ON and IF_SPECIFIED.  If IF_SPECIFIED is used, adaptive
  hash index are only used for tables and indexes that specifies
  adaptive_hash_index=on.
- The following new options can be used to further optimize adaptive hash
  index for an index (default is unset/auto for all of them):
   - complete_fields:
     - 0 to the number of columns the key is defined on (max 64)
   - bytes_from_incomplete_field:
     - This is only usable for memcmp() comparable index fields, such as
       VARBINARY or INT. For example, a 3-byte prefix on an INT will
       return an identical hash value for 0‥255, another one for 256‥511,
       and so on.
     - Range is min 0 max 16383.
   - for_equal_hash_point_to_last_record
     -  Default is unset/auto, NO points to the first record, known as
        left_side in the code; YES points to the last record.
        Example: we have an INT column with the values 1,4,10 and bytes=3,
        will that hash value point to the record 1 or the record 10?
        Note: all values will necessarily have the same hash value
        computed on the big endian byte prefix 0x800000, for all of the
        values 0x80000001, 0x80000004, 0x8000000a. InnoDB inverts the
        sign bit in order to have memcmp() compatible comparison

Example:
CREATE TABLE t1 (a int primary key, b varchar(100), c int,
index (b) adaptive_hash_index=no, index (c))
engine=innodb, adaptive_hash_index=yes;

Notable changes in InnoDB
- btr_search.enabled was changed from a bool to a ulong to be
  able to handle options OFF, ON as IF_ENABLED. ulong is needed
  to compile with MariaDB enum variables.
- To be able to find all instances where btr_search.enabled was used
  I changed all code to use btr_search.get_enabled() when accessing
  the value and used btr_search.is_enabled(index) to test if AHI is
  enabled for the index.
- btr_search.enable() was changed to always take two parameters,
  resize and value of enabled. This was needed as enabled can now
  have values 0, 1, and 2.
- store all AHI related options in per-index `dict_index_t::ahi`
  bit-packed 32-bit atomic field `ahi_enabled_fixed_mask`
  - static assertions and debug assertions ensure that all options fit
    into the 32-bit field
  - packing details:
    - `enabled`, `adaptive_hash_index` (first 2 bits)
    - `fields`, `complete_fields` (7 bit)
    - `bytes`, `bytes_from_incomplete_field` (14 bits)
    - `left`, `~for_equal_hash_point_to_last_record` (1 bit)
    - `is_fields_set`, `fields` set flag (1 bit)
    - `is_bytes_set`, `bytes` set flag (1 bit)
    - `is_left_set`, `left` set flag (last 1 bit)
    - 5 bits spare after `is_left_set`
  - manipulation of the bit-packed field avoids usage of branches or
    conditional instructions to minimize the performance impact of
    the new options
- in `btr_search_update_hash_ref` apply the per-index AHI options
  using bit-masking to override internal heuristic values with user
  preferences
- add `innodb.index_ahi_option` test:
  - test a combination of per-table and per-index AHI options
  - use a stored procedure which checks if AHI is used during a burst of
    index lookups checking delta in `adaptive_hash_searches` InnoDB
    monitor variable
  - test that the maximum number of fields per (secondary) index is 64
    (32+32)
- add `innodb.index_ahi_option_debug` test:
  - test debug builds with `index_ahi_option_debug_check` debug variable
    enabled to verify that the proper per-index AHI options are applied
    during index lookups
  - test that illegal per-index AHI are non-destructive and just lead to
    no AHI usage

Visible user changes:
- select @@global.adaptive_hash_index will now return a string instead
  of 0 or 1.

Other notable changes:
- In `sql/create_options.cc`:
  - In function `parse_engine_part_options` do allocate table options
    in share root to avoid MSAN/ASAN errors due to use after free of
    `option_struct` in test `parts.partition_special_innodb`.
  - In function `set_one_value` avoid reading after the end of the
    current string.

Co-authored-by: Monty <monty@mariadb.org>
Co-authored-by: Marko Mäkelä <marko.makela@mariadb.com>
Co-authored-by: Alessandro Vetere <iminelink@gmail.com>
Co-authored-by: Thirunarayanan Balathandayuthapani <thiru@mariadb.com>
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

5 participants