Re: Observations in Parallel Append
Amit Kapila <amit.kapila16@gmail.com>
From: Amit Kapila <amit.kapila16@gmail.com>
To: Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com>
Cc: PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers@lists.postgresql.org>
Date: 2017-12-25T04:37:41Z
Lists: pgsql-hackers
On Sun, Dec 24, 2017 at 12:06 PM, Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com> wrote: > On Fri, Dec 22, 2017 at 6:18 AM, Amit Kapila <amit.kapila16@gmail.com> wrote: > >> Also, don't we need to use parallel_divisor for partial paths instead >> of non-partial paths as those will be actually distributed among >> workers? > > Uh, that seems backwards to me. We're trying to estimate the average > number of rows per worker. > Okay, but is it appropriate to use the parallel_divisor? The parallel_divisor means the contribution of all the workers (+ leader_contribution) whereas for non-partial paths there will be always only the subset of workers which will operate on them. Consider a case with one non-partial subpath and five partial subpaths with six as parallel_divisor, now the current code will try to divide the rows of non-partial subpath with respect to six workers. However, in reality, there will always be one worker which will execute that path. -- With Regards, Amit Kapila. EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
Commits
-
Code review for Parallel Append.
- c75939561776 11.0 landed