Re: Parallel Foreign Scans - need advice

From: Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de>
To: Korry Douglas <korry(at)me(dot)com>
Cc: PostgreSQL-development Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: Parallel Foreign Scans - need advice
Date: 2019-05-15 17:08:03
Message-ID: 20190515170803.3f6tqsytba47np66@alap3.anarazel.de
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Hi,

On 2019-05-15 12:55:33 -0400, Korry Douglas wrote:
> Hi all, I’m working on an FDW that would benefit greatly from parallel foreign scan. I have implemented the callbacks described here:https://www.postgresql.org/docs/devel/fdw-callbacks.html#FDW-CALLBACKS-PARALLEL. and I see a big improvement in certain plans.
>
> My problem is that I can’t seem to get a parallel foreign scan in a query that does not contain an aggregate.
>
> For example:
> SELECT count(*) FROM foreign table;
> Gives me a parallel scan, but
> SELECT * FROM foreign table;
> Does not.

Well, that'd be bound by the cost of transferring tuples between workers
and leader. You don't get, unless you fiddle heavily with the cost, a
parallel scan for the equivalent local table scan either. You can
probably force the planner's hand by setting parallel_setup_cost,
parallel_tuple_cost very low - but it's unlikely to be beneficial.

If you added a where clause that needs to be evaluated outside the FDW,
you'd probably see parallel scans without fiddling with the costs.

> A second related question - how can I find the actual number of
> workers chose for my ForeignScan? At the moment, I looking at
> ParallelContext->nworkers (inside of the InitializeDSMForeignScan()
> callback) because that seems to be the first callback function that
> might provide the worker count. I need the *actual* worker count in
> order to evenly distribute my workload. I can’t use the usual trick
> of having each worker grab the next available chunk (because I have to
> avoid seek operations on compressed data). In other words, it is of
> great advantage for each worker to read contiguous chunks of data -
> seeking to another part of the file is prohibitively expensive.

Don't think - but am not sure - that there's a nicer way
currently. Although I'd use nworkers_launched, rather than nworkers.

Greetings,

Andres Freund

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Korry Douglas 2019-05-15 17:31:59 Re: Parallel Foreign Scans - need advice
Previous Message Alvaro Herrera 2019-05-15 17:05:30 Re: New EXPLAIN option: ALL