From: | Greg Nancarrow <gregn4422(at)gmail(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Dilip Kumar <dilipbalaut(at)gmail(dot)com> |
Cc: | Bharath Rupireddy <bharath(dot)rupireddyforpostgres(at)gmail(dot)com>, Amit Kapila <amit(dot)kapila16(at)gmail(dot)com>, Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: Parallel INSERT (INTO ... SELECT ...) |
Date: | 2020-09-30 02:07:40 |
Message-ID: | CAJcOf-f-Ui+L91_L_3XJHe1SrcOaB_OiOdpXZTu9RCFG0iQQ0Q@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
> >
> > I think you still need to work on the costing part, basically if we
> > are parallelizing whole insert then plan is like below
> >
> > -> Gather
> > -> Parallel Insert
> > -> Parallel Seq Scan
> >
> > That means the tuple we are selecting via scan are not sent back to
> > the gather node, so in cost_gather we need to see if it is for the
> > INSERT then there is no row transferred through the parallel queue
> > that mean we need not to pay any parallel tuple cost.
>
> I just looked into the parallel CTAS[1] patch for the same thing, and
> I can see in that patch it is being handled.
>
> [1] https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/CALj2ACWFq6Z4_jd9RPByURB8-Y8wccQWzLf%2B0-Jg%2BKYT7ZO-Ug%40mail.gmail.com
>
Hi Dilip,
You're right, the costing for Parallel Insert is not done and
finished, I'm still working on the costing, and haven't posted an
updated patch for it yet.
As far as cost_gather() method is concerned, for Parallel INSERT, it
can probably use the same costing approach as the CTAS patch except in
the case of a specified RETURNING clause.
Regards,
Greg Nancarrow
Fujitsu Australia
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Craig Ringer | 2020-09-30 02:12:04 | Re: [PATCH] We install pg_regress and isolationtester but not pg_isolation_regress |
Previous Message | David G. Johnston | 2020-09-30 02:00:46 | Re: DROP relation IF EXISTS Docs and Tests - Bug Fix |