Re: Parallel Sort - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Noah Misch
Subject Re: Parallel Sort
Date
Msg-id 20130515181137.GB234183@tornado.leadboat.com
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: Parallel Sort  (Michael Paquier <michael.paquier@gmail.com>)
Responses Re: Parallel Sort  (Hitoshi Harada <umi.tanuki@gmail.com>)
List pgsql-hackers
On Wed, May 15, 2013 at 08:12:34AM +0900, Michael Paquier wrote:
> The concept of clause parallelism for backend worker is close to the
> concept of clause shippability introduced in Postgres-XC. In the case of
> XC, the equivalent of the master backend is a backend located on a node
> called Coordinator that merges and organizes results fetched in parallel
> from remote nodes where data scans occur (on nodes called Datanodes). The
> backends used for tuple scans across Datanodes share the same data
> visibility as they use the same snapshot and transaction ID as the backend
> on Coordinator. This is different from the parallelism as there is no idea
> of snapshot import to worker backends.

Worker backends would indeed share snapshot and XID.

> However, the code in XC planner used for clause shippability evaluation is
> definitely worth looking at just considering the many similarities it
> shares with parallelism when evaluating if a given clause can be executed
> on a worker backend or not. It would be a waste to implement twice the same
> thing is there is code already available.

Agreed.  Local parallel query is very similar to distributed query; the
specific IPC cost multipliers differ, but that's about it.  I hope we can
benefit from XC's experience in this area.

-- 
Noah Misch
EnterpriseDB                                 http://www.enterprisedb.com



pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Andrew Dunstan
Date:
Subject: Re: commit fest schedule for 9.4
Next
From: Noah Misch
Date:
Subject: Re: Parallel Sort