From: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Haribabu Kommi <kommi(dot)haribabu(at)gmail(dot)com> |
Cc: | "pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: Parallel Sequence Scan doubts |
Date: | 2014-08-27 12:33:18 |
Message-ID: | CA+TgmoYFvZeNoXaHpDDJYq56reAmMEMQG1PthFm6m5fDnqz2SA@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Thu, Aug 21, 2014 at 2:47 AM, Haribabu Kommi
<kommi(dot)haribabu(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> Implementation of "Parallel Sequence Scan"
>
> Approach:
>
> 1."Parallel Sequence Scan" can achieved by using the background
> workers doing the job of actual sequence scan including the
> qualification check also.
>
> 2. Planner generates the parallel scan plan by checking the possible
> criteria of the table to do a parallel scan and generates the tasks
> (range of blocks).
>
> 3. In the executor Init phase, Try to copy the necessary data required
> by the workers and start the workers.
>
> 4. In the executor run phase, just get the tuples which are sent by
> the workers and process them further in the plan node execution.
Well, this is something I've thought quite a bit about already. Many
of my thoughts on parallelism are here:
https://wiki.postgresql.org/wiki/Parallel_Sort
Although the page title is parallel sort, many of the concerns are
applicable to parallelism of any sort.
I posted some patches containing some of the necessary infrastructure here:
I seem to have forgotten to add that message to the CommitFest. Crap.
--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Fujii Masao | 2014-08-27 12:33:52 | Re: Function to know last log write timestamp |
Previous Message | Fabien COELHO | 2014-08-27 12:29:05 | Re: postgresql latency & bgwriter not doing its job |