Re: CustomScan under the Gather node?

Поиск
Список
Период
Сортировка
От Robert Haas
Тема Re: CustomScan under the Gather node?
Дата
Msg-id CA+Tgmob21PAykxm3bLFhNvYT66WJdArEoZkY6RFc+O2BzQ=f0A@mail.gmail.com
обсуждение исходный текст
Ответ на Re: CustomScan under the Gather node?  (Kouhei Kaigai <kaigai@ak.jp.nec.com>)
Список pgsql-hackers
On Thu, Jan 28, 2016 at 8:14 PM, Kouhei Kaigai <kaigai@ak.jp.nec.com> wrote:
>>              total         ForeignScan        diff
>> 0 workers: 17584.319 ms   17555.904 ms      28.415 ms
>> 1 workers: 18464.476 ms   18110.968 ms     353.508 ms
>> 2 workers: 19042.755 ms   14580.335 ms    4462.420 ms
>> 3 workers: 19318.254 ms   12668.912 ms    6649.342 ms
>> 4 workers: 21732.910 ms   13596.788 ms    8136.122 ms
>> 5 workers: 23486.846 ms   14533.409 ms    8953.437 ms
>>
>> This workstation has 4 CPU cores, so it is natural nworkers=3 records the
>> peak performance on ForeignScan portion. On the other hands, nworkers>1 also
>> recorded unignorable time consumption (probably, by Gather node?)
>   :
>> Further investigation will need....
>>
> It was a bug of my file_fdw patch. ForeignScan node in the master process was
> also kicked by the Gather node, however, it didn't have coordinate information
> due to oversight of the initialization at InitializeDSMForeignScan callback.
> In the result, local ForeignScan node is still executed after the completion
> of coordinated background worker processes, and returned twice amount of rows.
>
> In the revised patch, results seems to me reasonable.
>              total         ForeignScan      diff
> 0 workers: 17592.498 ms   17564.457 ms     28.041ms
> 1 workers: 12152.998 ms   11983.485 ms    169.513 ms
> 2 workers: 10647.858 ms   10502.100 ms    145.758 ms
> 3 workers:  9635.445 ms    9509.899 ms    125.546 ms
> 4 workers: 11175.456 ms   10863.293 ms    312.163 ms
> 5 workers: 12586.457 ms   12279.323 ms    307.134 ms

Hmm.  Is the file_fdw part of this just a demo, or do you want to try
to get that committed?  If so, maybe start a new thread with a more
appropriate subject line to just talk about that.  I haven't
scrutinized that part of the patch in any detail, but the general
infrastructure for FDWs and custom scans to use parallelism seems to
be in good shape, so I rewrote the documentation and committed that
part.

Do you have any idea why this isn't scaling beyond, uh, 1 worker?
That seems like a good thing to try to figure out.

-- 
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company



В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления:

Предыдущее
От: "Daniel Verite"
Дата:
Сообщение: Re: 2016-01 Commitfest
Следующее
От: Robert Haas
Дата:
Сообщение: Re: PostgreSQL Audit Extension