Re: asynchronous and vectorized execution

On 05/10/2016 08:26 PM, Robert Haas wrote:
> On Tue, May 10, 2016 at 3:00 AM, konstantin knizhnik
> <k.knizhnik@postgrespro.ru> wrote:
>> What's wrong with it that worker is blocked? You can just have more workers
>> (more than CPU cores) to let other of them continue to do useful work.
> Not really.  The workers are all running the same plan, so they'll all
> make the same decision about which node needs to be executed next.  If
> that node can't accommodate multiple processes trying to execute it at
> the same time, it will have to block all of them but the first one.
> Adding more processes just increases the number of processes sitting
> around doing nothing.

Doesn't this actually mean that we need to have normal job scheduler which is given queue of jobs and having some pool
ofthreads will be able to orginize efficient execution of queries? Optimizer can build pipeline (graph) of tasks, which
correspondsto 
 
execution plan nodes, i.e. SeqScan, Sort, ... Each task is splitted into several jobs which can be concurretly
scheduledby task dispatcher.  So you will not have blocked worker waiting for something and all system resources will
beutilized. Such approach 
 
with dispatcher allows to implement quotas, priorities,... Also dispatches can care about NUMA and cache optimizations
whichis especially critical on modern architectures. One more reference: http://db.in.tum.de/~leis/papers/morsels.pdf
 

Sorry, may be I wrong, but I still think that async.ops is "multitasking for poor":)
Yes, maintaining threads and especially separate processes adds significant overhead. It leads to extra resources
consumptionand context switches are quite expensive. And I know from my own experience that replacing several
concurrentprocesses performing 
 
some IO (for example with sockets) with just one process using multiplexing allows to increase performance. But still
async.ops. is just a way to make programmer responsible for managing state machine instead of relying on OS tomake
contextswitches. 
 
Manual transmission is still more efficient than automatic transmission. But still most drives prefer last one;)

Seriously, I carefully read your response to Kochei, but still not convinced that async. ops. is what we need.  Or may
bewe just understand different thing by this notion.
 


>
>> But there are some researches, for example:
>>
>> http://www.vldb.org/pvldb/vol4/p539-neumann.pdf
>>
>> showing that the same or even better effect can be achieved by generation
>> native code for query execution plan (which is not so difficult now, thanks
>> to LLVM).
>> It eliminates interpretation overhead and increase cache locality.
>> I get similar results with my own experiments of accelerating SparkSQL.
>> Instead of native code generation I used conversion of query plans to C code
>> and experiment with different data representation. "Horisontal model" with
>> loading columns on demands shows better performance than columnar store.
> Yes, I think this approach should also be considered.
>
>> At this moment (February) them have implemented translation of only few
>> PostgreSQL operators used by ExecQuals  and do not support aggregates.
>> Them get about 2 times increase of speed at synthetic queries and 25%
>> increase at TPC-H Q1 (for Q1 most critical is generation of native code for
>> aggregates, because ExecQual itself takes only 6% of time for this query).
>> Actually these 25% for Q1 were achieved not by using dynamic code
>> generation, but switching from PULL to PUSH model in executor.
>> It seems to be yet another interesting PostgreSQL executor transformation.
>> As far as I know, them are going to publish result of their work to open
>> source...
> Interesting.  You may notice that in "asynchronous mode" my prototype
> works using a push model of sorts.  Maybe that should be taken
> further.
>


-- 
Konstantin Knizhnik
Postgres Professional: http://www.postgrespro.com
The Russian Postgres Company