Re: [HACKERS] asynchronous execution

Поиск
Список
Период
Сортировка
От Corey Huinker
Тема Re: [HACKERS] asynchronous execution
Дата
Msg-id CADkLM=ffokmXLdc3QRAs74zLC84AE1YWWnWGOt9PQ8osTzzs1w@mail.gmail.com
обсуждение исходный текст
Ответ на Re: [HACKERS] asynchronous execution  (Corey Huinker <corey.huinker@gmail.com>)
Ответы Re: [HACKERS] asynchronous execution
Список pgsql-hackers
Дерево обсуждения
On Mon, Mar 13, 2017 at 1:06 AM, Corey Huinker <corey.huinker@gmail.com> wrote:

I think it will, because Append itself has been made async-capable by one
of the patches and UNION ALL uses Append.  But as mentioned above, only
the postgres_fdw foreign tables will be able to utilize this for now.


Ok, I'll re-run my test from a few weeks back and see if anything has changed. 


I'm not able to discern any difference in plan between a 9.6 instance and this patch.

The basic outline of my test is:

EXPLAIN ANALYZE
SELECT c1, c2, ..., cN FROM tab1 WHERE date = '1 day ago'
UNION ALL
SELECT c1, c2, ..., cN FROM tab2 WHERE date = '2 days ago'
UNION ALL
SELECT c1, c2, ..., cN FROM tab3 WHERE date = '3 days ago'
UNION ALL
SELECT c1, c2, ..., cN FROM tab4 WHERE date = '4 days ago'

I've tried this test where tab1 through tab4 all are the same postgres_fdw foreign table.
I've tried this test where tab1 through tab4 all are different foreign tables pointing to the same remote table sharing a the same server definition.
I've tried this test where tab1 through tab4 all are different foreign tables pointing each with it's own foreign server definition, all of which happen to point to the same remote cluster.

Are there some postgresql.conf settings I should set to get a decent test?



 

В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления:

Предыдущее
От: Tom Lane
Дата:
Сообщение: Re: [HACKERS] \if, \elseif, \else, \endif (was Re: PSQL commands: \quit_if, \quit_unless)
Следующее
От: Tomas Vondra
Дата:
Сообщение: Re: [HACKERS] WIP: Faster Expression Processing v4