| From: | "movead(dot)li(at)highgo(dot)ca" <movead(dot)li(at)highgo(dot)ca> |
|---|---|
| To: | "Kyotaro Horiguchi" <horikyota(dot)ntt(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | bruce <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us>, ahsan(dot)hadi <ahsan(dot)hadi(at)highgo(dot)ca>, robertmhaas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, thomas(dot)munro <thomas(dot)munro(at)gmail(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>, sfrost <sfrost(at)snowman(dot)net> |
| Subject: | Re: Append with naive multiplexing of FDWs |
| Date: | 2020-01-29 09:58:57 |
| Message-ID: | 2020012917585385831113@highgo.ca |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Hello,
>It is "asynchronous append on async-capable'd postgres-fdw scans". It
>could be called as such in the sense that it is intended to be used
>with sharding.
Yes that's it.
>Did you looked at my benchmarking result upthread? Even it gives
>significant gain even when gathering large number of tuples from
>multiple servers or even from a single server. It is because of its
>asynchronous nature.
I mean it gain performance at first, but it mets bottleneck while
increase the number of the nodes.
For example:
It has 2 nodes, it will gain 200% performance.
It has 3 nodes, it will gain 300% performance.
However,
It has 4 nodes, it gain 300% performance.
It has 5 nodes, it gain 300% performance.
...
----
Highgo Software (Canada/China/Pakistan)
URL : www.highgo.ca
EMAIL: mailto:movead(dot)li(at)highgo(dot)ca
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Christoph Moench-Tegeder | 2020-01-29 10:51:42 | Re: psqlODBC development |
| Previous Message | Daniel Verite | 2020-01-29 09:51:27 | Re: Making psql error out on output failures |