Re: Proposal: speeding up GIN build with parallel workers

From: Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>
To: "Constantin S(dot) Pan" <kvapen(at)gmail(dot)com>
Cc: "pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: Proposal: speeding up GIN build with parallel workers
Date: 2016-01-18 18:43:54
Message-ID: CA+TgmoYf68hmRsUMkqLkAAgEYGdKMbbDgxJgE6JjjJi02CHuaw@mail.gmail.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On Fri, Jan 15, 2016 at 5:38 PM, Constantin S. Pan <kvapen(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> In current state the implementation is just a proof of concept
> and it has all the configuration hardcoded, but it already works as is,
> though it does not speed up the build process more than 4 times on my
> configuration (12 CPUs). There is also a problem with temporary tables,
> for which the parallel mode does not work.

I have yet to see a case where parallel query, with any current or
pending patch, gets more than about a 4x speedup. I can't think of
any reason that there should be a wall at 4x, and I'm not sure we're
hitting the wall there for the same reason in all cases. But your
observation corresponds to my experience.

I hope we eventually figure out how to make that much better, but I
wouldn't feel too bad about being at that spot now. 4x faster is
still a lot faster.

--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company

In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Robert Haas 2016-01-18 18:51:09 Re: Cannot find a working 64-bit integer type
Previous Message Robert Haas 2016-01-18 18:27:59 Re: [PATCH] Improve spinlock inline assembly for x86.