Project: CockroachDB (App Definition and Development / Database)
File: sql.md

Last update: September 2018 This document provides an architectural overview of the SQL layer in CockroachDB. The SQL layer is responsible for providing the "SQL API" that enables access to a CockroachDB cluster by client applications. Original author: knz Table of contents: Component details: - - - This document complements the prior document "Life of a SQL query" by Andrei. Andrei's document is structured as an itinerary, where the reader follows the same path as a SQL query and its response data through the architecture of CockroachDB. This architecture document is a top-down perspective of all the components involved side-by-side, which names and describes the relationships between them. In short, answers the question "what happens and how" and this document answers the question "what are the parts involved". tl;dr: there is an architecture, but it is not yet visible in the source code. In most state-of-the-art software projects, there exists a relatively good correspondence between the main conceptual items of the overall architecture (and its diagrams, say) and the source code. For example, if the architecture calls out a thing called e.g. "query runner", which takes as input a logical query plan (a data structure) and outputs result rows (another data structure), you'd usually expect a thing in the source code called "query runner" that looks like a class whose instances would carry the execution's internal state providing some methods that take a logical plan as input, and returning result rows as results. In CockroachDB's source code, this way of thinking does not apply: instead, CockroachDB's architecture is an emergent property of its source code. "Emergent" means that while it is possible to understand the architecture by reading the source code, the idea of an architecture can only emerge in the mind of the reader after an intense and powerful mental exercise of abstraction. Without this active effort, the code just looks like a plate of spaghetti until months of grit and iterative navigation and tinkering stimulates the reader's subconscious mind to run through the abstraction exercise on its own, and to slowly and incrementally reveal the architecture, while the reader's experience builds up. There are multiple things that can be said about this state of affairs: this situation sounds much worse than it really is. While the code is initially difficult to map to an overarching architecture, every person who has touched the code has made their best effort at maintaining good separation of responsibilities between different components. The fact that this document is able to reconstruct a relatively sane architectural model from the source code *despite the lack of explicit overarching architectural guidelines so far* is a testament to the quality of said source code and the work of all past and current contributors. nevertheless, *it exerts a high resistance against the onboarding of new team members, and it constitutes an obstacle to the formation of truly decoupled teams*. Let me explain. While our "starter projects" ensure that new team members get quickly up to speed with our engineering process, they are rather powerless at creating any high-level understanding whatsoever of how CockroachDB's SQL layer really

My observations so far suggest that onboarding a contributor to CockroachDB's SQL code such that they can contribute non-trivial changes to any part of the SQL layer requires four to six months of incrementally complex assignments over all of the SQL layer. The reason for this is that (until this document was written) the internal components of the SQL layer were not conceptually isolated, so one had to work with all of them to truly understand their boundaries. By the time any good understanding of any single component could develop, the team member would have needed to look at and comprehend every other component. And therefore teams could not maintain strong conceptual isolation between areas of the source code, for any trainee would be working across boundaries all the time. finally, this situation is changing, and will change further. As the number of more experienced engineers grows, more of us are starting to consciously realize that this situation is untenable and that we must start to actively address complexity growth and the lack of internal boundaries. Me authoring this document serves as witness to this change of winds. Moreover, some feature work (e.g. concurrent execution of SQL statements) is already motivating some good refactorings by Nathan, and more are coming on the horizon. Ideally, this entire "disclaimer" section in this architecture document would eventually disappear. There is probably space for a document that would outline how we wish CockroachDB's SQL architecture to look like; this is left as an exercise for a next iteration, and we will focus here on recognizing what is there without judgement. In short, the rest of this document is a model, not a specification. Also, several sections have a note "Whom to ask for details". This reflects the current advertised expertise of several team members, so as to serve as a possible point of entry for questions by newcomers, but does not intend to denote "ownership": so far I know, we don't practice "ownership" in this part of the code base. The flow of data in the SQL layer during query processing can be summarized as follows: There are overall five main component groups: pgwire: the protocol translator between clients and the executor; the SQL front-end, responsible for parsing, desugaring, free simplifications and semantic analysis; this comprises the two blocks "Parser" and "Expression analysis" in the overview diagram. the SQL middle-end, responsible for logical planning and optimization. the SQL back-end, which comprises "physical planning" and "query execution". the executor, which coordinates between the previous four things, the session data, the state SQL transaction and the interactions with the state of the transaction in the KV layer. Note that these components are a fictional model: for efficiency and engineering reasons, the the front-end and middle-end are grouped together in the code; meanwhile the back-end is here considered as a single component but is effectively developed and maintained as multiple separate sub-components. Besides these components on the "main" data path of a common SQL query, there are additional auxiliary components that can also participate: the lease manager for access to SQL object descriptors; the schema change manager to perform schema changes asynchronously; the memory monitors for memory accounting. Although they are auxiliary to the main components above, only the memory monitor is relatively simple -- a large architectural discussion would be necessary to fully comprehend the complexity of SQL leases and schema

The [detailed model section below](#detailed-model-components-and-data-flow) describes these components further and where they are located in the source code. It is common for SQL engines to separate processing of a query into two phases: preparation and execution. This is especially valuable because the work of preparation can be performed just once for multiple executions. In CockroachDB this separation exists, and the preparation phase is itself split into sub-phases: logical preparation and physical preparation. This can be represented as follows: This diagram reveals the following: There are 3 main groups of statements: Read-only queries which only use SELECT, TABLE and VALUES. DDL statements (CREATE, ALTER etc) which incur schema changes. The rest (non-DDL), including SHOW, SET and SQL mutations. The logical preparation phase contains two sub-phases: Semantic analysis and validation, which is common to all SQL statements; Plan optimization, which uses different optimization implementations (or none) depending on the statement group. The physical preparation is performed differently depending on the statement group. Query execution is also performed differently depending on the statement group, but with some shared components across statement groups. The previous section revealed that different statements pass through different stages in the SQL layer. This can be further illustrated in the following diagram: This diagram reveals the following: There are actually 6 statement groups currently: The read-only queries introduced above, DDL statements introduced above, SHOW/SET and other non-mutation SQL statements, SQL mutation statements, Bulk I/O statements in CCL code that influence the schema: IMPORT/EXPORT, BACKUP/RESTORE, Other CCL statements. There are 2 separate, independent and partly redundant implementations of semantic analysis and validation. The CCL code uses its own. (This is bad and ought to be changed, see below.) There are 3 separate, somewhat independent but redundant implementations of logical planning and optimizations. the SQL cost-based planner and optimizer is the new main component. the heuristic planner and optimizer was the code used before the cost-based optimizer was implemented, and is still used for every statement not yet supported by the optimizer. This code is being phased out as its features are being taken over by the cost-based optimizer. the CCL planning code exists in a separate package and tries hard (and badly) to create logical plans as an add-on package. It interfaces with the heuristic planner via some glue code that was organically grown over time without any consideration for maintainability. So it's bad on its own and also heavily relies on another component (the heuristic planner) which is already obsolete. (This is bad; this code needs to disappear.) There are 2 somewhat independent but redundant execution engines for SQL query plans: distributed and local. These two are currently being merged, although CCL statements have no way to integrate with distributed execution currently and still heavily rely on local execution. (This is bad; this needs to change.) The remaining components are used adequately by the statement types that require them and not more. This proliferation of components is a historical artifact of the CockroachDB implementation strategy in 2017, and is not to remain in the long term. The desired situation looks more like the following: That is, use the same planning and execution code for all the statement

Here is a more detailed version of the summary of data flow interactions between components, introduced at the beginning: (Right-click then "open image in new window" to zoom in and keep the diagram open while you read the rest of this document.) There are two main interfaces between the SQL layer and its "outside world": the network SQL interface, for clients connections that want to speak SQL (via pgwire); the transactional KV store, CockroachDB's next high-level abstraction layer; I call these "main" interfaces because they are fundamentally necessary to provide any kind of SQL functionality. Also they are rather conceptually narrow: the network SQL interface is more or less "SQL in, rows out" and the KV interface is more or less "KV ops out, data/acks in". In addition, there exist also a few interfaces that are a bit less visible and emerge as a side-effect of how the current source code is organized: the distSQL flows to/from "processors" running locally and on other nodes. these establish their own network streams (on top of gRPC) to/from other nodes. the interface protocol is more complex: there are sub-protocols to set up and tear down flows; managing errors, and transferring data between processors. distSQL processors do not access most of the rest of the SQL code; the only interactions are limited to expression evaluation (a conceptually very small part of the local runner) and accessing the KV client interface. the distSQL physical planner also talks directly to the distributed storage layer to get locality information about which nodes are leaseholders for which ranges. the internal SQL interface, by which other components of CockroachDB can use the SQL interface to access lower layers without having to open a pgwire connection. The users of the internal interface include: within the SQL layer itself, the lease manager and the schema change manager, which are outlined below, the admin RPC endpoints, used by CLI tools and the admin web UI. outside of the SQL layer: metrics collector (db stats), database event log collector (db/table creation/deletion etc), etc the memory monitor interface; this is currently technically in the SQL layer but it aims to regulate memory allocations across client connections and the admin RPC, so it has global state independent of SQL and I count it as somewhat of a fringe component. the event logger: this is is where the SQL layer saves details about important events like when a DB or table was created, etc. (This is perhaps the architectural component that is the most recognizable as an isolated thing in the source code.) Roles: primary: serve as a protocol translator between network clients that speak pgwire and the internal API of the SQL layer. secondary: authenticate incoming client connections. How: Overall architecture: event loop, one per connection (in separate goroutines, `v3Conn.serve()`). Get data from network, call into executor, put data into network when executor call returns, rinse, repeat. Interfaces: The network side (`v3Conn.conn` implementing `net.Conn`): gets bytes of pgwire protocol in from the network, sends bytes of pgwire protocol out to the network. memory monitor (`Server.connMonitor`): pre-reserves chunks of memory from the global SQL pool (`Server.sqlMemoryPool`), that can be reused for smallish SQL sessions without having to grab the global mutex. Executor: pgwire queues input SQL queries and COPY data packets to the "conn executor" in the `sql`

For each input SQL query pgwire also prepares a "result collector" that goes into the queue. The executor monitors this queue, executes the incoming queries and delivers the results via the result collectors. pgwire then translates the results to response packets towards the client. Code lives in `sql/pgwire`. Whom to ask for details: mattj, jordan, alfonso, nathan. the "Parser" (really: lexer + parser), in charge of syntactic analysis. scalar expression semantic analysis, including name resolution, constant folding, type checking and simplification. statement semantic analysis, including e.g. existence tests on the target names of schema change statements. Reminder: "semantic analysis" as a general term is the phase in programming language transformers where the compiler determines if the input makes sense. The output of semantic analysis is thus conceptually a yes/no answer to the question "does this make sense" and the input program, optionally with some annotations. Role: transform SQL strings into syntax trees. Interface: SQL string in, AST (Abstract Syntax Tree) out. mainly `Parser.Parse()` in `sql/parser/parse.go`. How: The code is a bit spread out but quite close to what every textbook suggests. `Parser.Parse()` really: creates a LL(2) lexer (`Scanner` in `scan.go`) invokes a go-yacc-generated LALR parser using said scanner (`sql.go` generated from `sql.y`) go-yacc generates LALR(1) logic, but SQL really needs LALR(2) because of ambiguities with AS/NOT/WITH; to work around this, the LL(2) scanner creates LALR(1) pseudo-tokens marked with `_LA` based on its 2nd lookahead. expects either an error or a `Statement` list from the parser, and returns that to its caller. the list of tokens recognized by the lexer is automatically derived from the yacc grammar (cf. `sql/parser/Makefile`) many AST nodes!!! until now we have wanted to be able to pretty-print the AST back to its original SQL form or as close as possible no good reason from a product perspective, it was just useful in tests early on so we keep trying out of tradition so the parser doesn't desugar most things (there can be `ParenExpr` or `ParenSelect` nodes in the parsed AST...) except it does actually desugars some things like `TRIM(TRAILING ...)` to `RTRIM(...)`. too many nodes, really, a hell to maintain. "IR project" ongoing to auto-generate all this code. AST nodes have a slot for a type annotation, filled in the middle-end (below) by the type checker. Whom to ask for details: pretty much anyone. Role: check AST expressions are valid, do some preliminary optimizations on them, provide them with types. Interface: `Expr` AST in, `TypedExpr` AST out (actually: typed+simplified expression) via `analyzeExpr()` (`sql/analyze.go`) How: name resolution (in various places): replaces column names by `parser.IndexedVar` instances, replaces function names by `parser.FuncDef` references. `parser.TypeCheck()`/`parser.TypeCheckAndRequire()`: performs constant folding; performs type inference; performs type checking; memoizes comparator functions on `ComparisonExpr` nodes; annotates expressions and placeholders with their types. `parser.NormalizeExpr()`: desugar and simplify expressions: for example, `(a+1) < 3` is transformed to `a < 2` for example, `-(a - b)` is transformed to `(b - a)` for example, `a between c and d` is transformed to `a >= c and a <= d` the name "normalize" is a bit of a misnomer, since there is no real normalization going on. The historical motivation for the name was the transform that tries hard to pull everything but variable names to the right of

The implementation of these sub-tasks is nearly purely functional. The only wart is that `TypeCheck` spills the type of SQL placeholders (`$1`, `$2` etc) onto the semantic context object passed through the recursion in a way that is order-sensitive. Note: it's possible to inspect the expressions without desugaring and simplification using `EXPLAIN(EXPRS, TYPES)`. Whom to ask for details: the SQL team(s). Role: check that SQL statements are valid. Interface: There are no interfaces here, unfortunately. The code for statement semantic analysis is currently interleaved with the code to construct the logical query plan. This does use (call into) expression semantic analysis as described above. How: check the existence of databases or tables for statements that assume their existence this interacts with the lease manager to access descriptors check permissions for statements that require specific privileges. perform expression semantic analysis for every expression used by the statement. check the validity of requested schema change operations for DDL statements. Code: in the `opt` package, also currently some code in the `sql` package. Whom to ask for details: the SQL team(s). Two things are involved here: logical planner: transforms the annotated AST into a logical plan. logical plan optimizer: makes the logical plan better. Role: turn the AST into a logical plan. Interface: see `opt/optbuilder`. How: in-order depth-first recursive traversal of the AST; invokes semantics checks on the way; constructs a tree of relational expression nodes. This tree is also called the memo because of the data structure it uses internally. the resulting tree is the logical plan. Whom to ask for details: the SQL team(s). Role: make queries run faster. Interface: see `opt`. Whom to ask for details: the optimizer team. Role: plan the distribution of query execution (= decide which computation goes to which node) and then actually run the query. See the distSQL RFC and "Life of a SQL query" for details. Code: `pkg/sql/distsql{plan,run}` Whom to ask for details: the SQL execution team. Role: perform individual relational operations in a currently executing distributed plan. Whom to ask for details: the SQL execution team. Roles: coordinate between the other components maintain the state of the SQL transaction maintain the correspondence between the SQL txn state and the KV txn state perform automatic retries of implicit transactions, or transactions entirely contained in a SQL string received from pgwire track metrics Interfaces: from pgwire: `ExecuteStatements()`, `Prepare()`, `session.PreparedStatements.New()`/`Delete()`, `CopyData()`/`CopyDone()`/`CopyEnd()`; for the internal SQL interface: `QueryRow()`, `queryRows()`, `query()`, `exec()`; into the other components within the SQL layer: see the interfaces in the previous sections of this document; towards the memory monitor: to account for result set accumulated in memory between transaction boundaries; How: maintains its state in the `Session` object; there's a monster spaghetti code state machine in `executor.go`; there's a monster "god class" called `planner`; it's a mess, and yet it works! Whom to ask for details: andrei, nathan This thing is responsible for leasing cached descriptors to the rest of SQL. Interface: the lease manager presents an interface to "get cached descriptors" for the rest of the SQL code. Why: we don't want to retrieve the schema descriptors using KV in every transaction, as this would be slow, so we cache

since we cache descriptors, we need a cache consistency protocol with other nodes to ensure that descriptors are not cached forever and that cached copies are not so stale as to be invalid when there are schema changes. The lease manager abstracts this protocol from the rest of the SQL code. How: It's quite complicated. However the state of the lease manager is itself stored in a SQL table `system.leases`, and thus internally the lease manager must be able to issue SQL queries to access that table. For this, it uses the internal SQL interface. It's really like "SQL calling into itself". The reason why we don't get "turtles all the way down" is that the descriptor for `system.leases` is not itself cached. Note that the lease manager uses the same KV `txn` object as the ongoing SQL session, to ensure that newly leased descriptors are atomically consistent with the rest of the statements in the same transaction. Code: `sql/lease.go`. Whom to ask for details: vivek, dt, andrei. This is is responsible for performing changes to the SQL schema. Interface: "intentions" to change the schema are defined as mutation records on the various descriptors, once mutation records are created, client components can write the descriptors back to the KV store, however they also must inform the schema change manager that a schema change must start via `notifySchemaChange`. Why: Adding a column to a very large table or removing a column can be very long. Instead of performing these operations atomically within the transaction where they were issued, CockroachDB runs schema changes asynchronously. Then asynchronously the schema change manager will process whatever needs to be done, such as backfilling a column or populating an index, using a sequence of separate KV transactions. How: It's quite complicated. Unlike the lease manager, the current state of ongoing schema changes is not stored in a SQL table (it's stored directly in the descriptors); however the schema change manager is (soon) to maintain an informational "job table" to provide insight to users about the progress of schema changes, and that is a SQL table. So like the lease manager, the schema change manager uses the internal SQL interface, and we have another instance here of "SQL calling into itself". The reason why we don't get "turtles all the way down" is that the schema change manager never issues SQL that performs schema changes, and thus never issues requests to itself. Also the schema change manager internally talks to the lease manager: leases have to stay consistent with completed schema changes! Code: `sql/schema_changer.go`. Whom to ask for details: vivek, dt. Memory monitors have a relatively simple role: remember how much memory has been allocated so far and ensure that the sum of allocations does not exceed some preset maximum. To ensure this: monitors get initialized with the maximum value ("budget") they will support; other things register their allocations to their monitor using an "account"; registrations can fail with an error "not enough budget"; all allocations can be de-registered at once by calling `Close` on an account. In addition a monitor can be "subservient" to another monitor, with its allocations counted against both its own budget and the budget of the monitor one level up. Code: `util/mon`; more details in a comment at the start of `util/mon/bytes_usage.go`. Whom to ask for details: the SQL execution team