From: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Rafia Sabih <rafia(dot)sabih(at)enterprisedb(dot)com> |
Cc: | PostgreSQL Developers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: [POC] Faster processing at Gather node |
Date: | 2017-05-19 12:28:06 |
Message-ID: | CA+Tgmoa2gtdwz1ym9DjJu2gO9kdrzhw3XPwP6-jh2c=yXBPYgQ@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Fri, May 19, 2017 at 7:55 AM, Rafia Sabih
<rafia(dot)sabih(at)enterprisedb(dot)com> wrote:
> While analysing the performance of TPC-H queries for the newly developed
> parallel-operators, viz, parallel index, bitmap heap scan, etc. we noticed
> that the time taken by gather node is significant. On investigation, as per
> the current method it copies each tuple to the shared queue and notifies the
> receiver. Since, this copying is done in shared queue, a lot of locking and
> latching overhead is there.
>
> So, in this POC patch I tried to copy all the tuples in a local queue thus
> avoiding all the locks and latches. Once, the local queue is filled as per
> it's capacity, tuples are transferred to the shared queue. Once, all the
> tuples are transferred the receiver is sent the notification about the same.
What if, instead of doing this, we switched the shm_mq stuff to use atomics?
--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Robert Haas | 2017-05-19 12:31:15 | Re: [HACKERS] Concurrent ALTER SEQUENCE RESTART Regression |
Previous Message | Robert Haas | 2017-05-19 12:20:22 | Re: Preliminary results for proposed new pgindent implementation |