From: | Kouhei Kaigai <kaigai(at)ak(dot)jp(dot)nec(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Haribabu Kommi <kommi(dot)haribabu(at)gmail(dot)com> |
Cc: | Kohei KaiGai <kaigai(at)kaigai(dot)gr(dot)jp>, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, PgHacker <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
Subject: | Re: contrib/cache_scan (Re: What's needed for cache-only table scan?) |
Date: | 2014-03-18 02:31:04 |
Message-ID: | 9A28C8860F777E439AA12E8AEA7694F8F8BAC0@BPXM15GP.gisp.nec.co.jp |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
> > Also, I split the patches again because *demonstration* part is much
> > larger than the patches to the core backend. It will help reviewing.
> > * pgsql-v9.4-vacuum_page_hook.v11.patch
> > -> It adds a hook for each page being vacuumed; that needs to synchronize
> > the status of in-memory cache managed by extension.
> > * pgsql-v9.4-mvcc_allows_cache.v11.patch
> > -> It allows to run HeapTupleSatisfiesVisibility() towards the tuples
> > on the in-memory cache, not on the heap.
> > * pgsql-v9.4-example-cache_scan.v11.patch
> > -> It demonstrates the usage of above two patches. It allows to scan
> > a relation without storage access if possible.
>
> All the patches are good. The cache scan extension patch may need further
> refinement in terms of performance improvement but the same can be handled
> later also.
> So I am marking the patch as "ready for committer". Thanks for the patch.
>
Thanks for your dedicated efforts on these patches.
The smaller portions of above submission can be applied independent from the
custom-plan interface, and its scale is much smaller than contrib/ portion
(about 30lines in total).
If someone can pick them up individually from the extension portion, it also
makes sense. I intended to implement the extension portion as simple as I can,
for the demonstration purpose rather than performance, however, its scale is
about 2.5KL. :-(
Yes, I know the time pressure towards v9.4 final feature freeze....
Best regards,
--
NEC OSS Promotion Center / PG-Strom Project
KaiGai Kohei <kaigai(at)ak(dot)jp(dot)nec(dot)com>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Haribabu Kommi [mailto:kommi(dot)haribabu(at)gmail(dot)com]
> Sent: Tuesday, March 18, 2014 11:14 AM
> To: Kaigai Kouhei(海外 浩平)
> Cc: Kohei KaiGai; Tom Lane; PgHacker; Robert Haas
> Subject: Re: contrib/cache_scan (Re: [HACKERS] What's needed for cache-only
> table scan?)
>
> On Mon, Mar 17, 2014 at 11:45 AM, Kouhei Kaigai <kaigai(at)ak(dot)jp(dot)nec(dot)com>
> wrote:
> > Hello,
> >
> > The attached patches are revised ones according to the latest
> > custom-plan interface patch (v11).
> > The cache-scan module was re-implemented on the newer interface, and
> > also I noticed the extension does not handle the tuples being
> > redirected correctly, So, I revised the logic in ccache_vacuum_page()
> > totally. It now becomes to synchronize the cached tuples per page, not
> > per tuple, basic and tries to merge t-tree chunks per page basis also.
> >
> > Also, I split the patches again because *demonstration* part is much
> > larger than the patches to the core backend. It will help reviewing.
> > * pgsql-v9.4-vacuum_page_hook.v11.patch
> > -> It adds a hook for each page being vacuumed; that needs to synchronize
> > the status of in-memory cache managed by extension.
> > * pgsql-v9.4-mvcc_allows_cache.v11.patch
> > -> It allows to run HeapTupleSatisfiesVisibility() towards the tuples
> > on the in-memory cache, not on the heap.
> > * pgsql-v9.4-example-cache_scan.v11.patch
> > -> It demonstrates the usage of above two patches. It allows to scan
> > a relation without storage access if possible.
>
> All the patches are good. The cache scan extension patch may need further
> refinement in terms of performance improvement but the same can be handled
> later also.
> So I am marking the patch as "ready for committer". Thanks for the patch.
>
> Regards,
> Hari Babu
> Fujitsu Australia
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Peter Eisentraut | 2014-03-18 02:31:53 | Re: Minimum supported version of Python? |
Previous Message | Michael Paquier | 2014-03-18 02:27:35 | Re: Is this a bug? |