| From: | Dilip Kumar <dilipbalaut(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Thomas Munro <thomas(dot)munro(at)enterprisedb(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Amit Kapila <amit(dot)kapila16(at)gmail(dot)com>, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de>, pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Parallel bitmap heap scan |
| Date: | 2016-11-28 03:53:23 |
| Message-ID: | CAFiTN-t+UyV3SXYu-O539jyrqi57c9bKx01ooG-aD_M-WCit9A@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Mon, Nov 28, 2016 at 9:20 AM, Thomas Munro
<thomas(dot)munro(at)enterprisedb(dot)com> wrote:
> It would work, but I suppose you might call it overkill. If they were
> cooperating to build the bitmap in parallel then a barrier might look
> more tempting, because then they'd all be waiting for each other to
> agree that they've all finished doing that and are ready to scan.
> When they're all just waiting for one guy to flip a single bit, then
> it's debatable whether a barrier is any simpler than a condition
> variable + a spinlock + a bit!
+1
--
Regards,
Dilip Kumar
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Robert Haas | 2016-11-28 03:59:02 | Re: Autovacuum breakage from a734fd5d1 |
| Previous Message | Thomas Munro | 2016-11-28 03:50:02 | Re: Parallel bitmap heap scan |