From: | Amit Kapila <amit(dot)kapila16(at)gmail(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Haribabu Kommi <kommi(dot)haribabu(at)gmail(dot)com> |
Cc: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, Andres Freund <andres(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Kouhei Kaigai <kaigai(at)ak(dot)jp(dot)nec(dot)com>, Amit Langote <amitlangote09(at)gmail(dot)com>, Amit Langote <Langote_Amit_f8(at)lab(dot)ntt(dot)co(dot)jp>, Fabrízio Mello <fabriziomello(at)gmail(dot)com>, Thom Brown <thom(at)linux(dot)com>, Stephen Frost <sfrost(at)snowman(dot)net>, pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: Parallel Seq Scan |
Date: | 2015-03-10 06:56:05 |
Message-ID: | CAA4eK1JjA+jq216n=E+51U393RgewALoMt1+VCuG7CEyjaLMKg@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Tue, Mar 10, 2015 at 10:23 AM, Haribabu Kommi <kommi(dot)haribabu(at)gmail(dot)com>
wrote:
>
> On Tue, Mar 10, 2015 at 3:09 PM, Amit Kapila <amit(dot)kapila16(at)gmail(dot)com>
wrote:
>
> > I have currently modelled it based on existing rescan for seqscan
> > (ExecReScanSeqScan()) which means it will begin the scan again.
> > Basically if the workers are already started/initialized by previous
> > scan, then re-initialize them (refer function ExecReScanFunnel() in
> > patch).
> >
> > Can you elaborate more if you think current handling is not sufficient
> > for any case?
>
> From ExecReScanFunnel function it seems that the re-scan waits till
> all the workers
> has to be finished to start again the next scan. Are the workers will
> stop the current
> ongoing task? otherwise this may decrease the performance instead of
> improving as i feel.
>
Okay, performance-wise it might effect such a case, but I think we can
handle it by not calling WaitForParallelWorkersToFinish(),
as DestroyParallelContext() will automatically terminate all the workers.
> I am not sure if it already handled or not, when a worker is waiting
> to pass the results,
> whereas the backend is trying to start the re-scan?
>
I think stopping/terminating workers should handle such a case.
Thanks for pointing out this case, I will change it in next update.
With Regards,
Amit Kapila.
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Abhijit Menon-Sen | 2015-03-10 07:49:48 | Re: initdb -S and tablespaces |
Previous Message | Beena Emerson | 2015-03-10 06:55:09 | Re: pg_trgm Memory Allocation logic |