From: | Thomas Munro <thomas(dot)munro(at)gmail(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | David Rowley <dgrowleyml(at)gmail(dot)com> |
Cc: | Ranier Vilela <ranier(dot)vf(at)gmail(dot)com>, Amit Kapila <amit(dot)kapila16(at)gmail(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: Parallel Seq Scan vs kernel read ahead |
Date: | 2020-05-21 22:27:15 |
Message-ID: | CA+hUKG+oqSM3RMOyMwDOc9uXR9mqWENeANLk5YHGdO6RuC3Xfw@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Fri, May 22, 2020 at 10:00 AM David Rowley <dgrowleyml(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> On Thu, 21 May 2020 at 17:06, David Rowley <dgrowleyml(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> > For the patch. I know you just put it together quickly, but I don't
> > think you can do that ramp up the way you have. It looks like there's
> > a risk of torn reads and torn writes and I'm unsure how much that
> > could affect the test results here.
>
> Oops. On closer inspection, I see that memory is per worker, not
> global to the scan.
Right, I think it's safe. I think you were probably right that
ramp-up isn't actually useful though, it's only the end of the scan
that requires special treatment so we don't get unfair allocation as
the work runs out, due to course grain. I suppose that even if you
have a scheme that falls back to fine grained allocation for the final
N pages, it's still possible that a highly distracted process (most
likely the leader given its double duties) can finish up sitting on a
large range of pages and eventually have to process them all at the
end after the other workers have already knocked off and gone for a
pint.
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Tom Lane | 2020-05-21 22:40:06 | Re: pgindent && weirdness |
Previous Message | David Rowley | 2020-05-21 21:59:58 | Re: Parallel Seq Scan vs kernel read ahead |