At Wed, 30 Sep 2020 16:30:41 +0900, Etsuro Fujita <etsuro.fujita@gmail.com> wrote in
> On Mon, Sep 28, 2020 at 10:35 AM Kyotaro Horiguchi
> <horikyota.ntt@gmail.com> wrote:
> > At Sat, 26 Sep 2020 19:45:39 +0900, Etsuro Fujita <etsuro.fujita@gmail.com> wrote in
> > > Your patch (and the original patch by Robert [1]) modified
> > > ExecAppend() so that it can process local plan nodes while waiting for
> > > the results from remote queries, which would be also a feature that’s
> > > not supported by Thomas’ patch, but I’d like to know performance
> > > results.
>
> > At least, even though theoretically, I think it's obvious that it's
> > performant to do something than just sitting waitng for the next tuple
> > to come from abroad.
>
> I did a simple test on my laptop:
>
> create table t1 (a int, b int, c text);
> create foreign table p1 (a int, b int, c text) server server1 options
> (table_name 't1');
> create table p2 (a int, b int, c text);
>
> insert into p1 select 10 + i % 10, i, to_char(i, 'FM00000') from
> generate_series(0, 99999) i;
> insert into p2 select 20 + i % 10, i, to_char(i, 'FM00000') from
> generate_series(0, 99999) i;
>
> analyze p1;
> vacuum analyze p2;
>
> create table pt (a int, b int, c text) partition by range (a);
> alter table pt attach partition p1 for values from (10) to (20);
> alter table pt attach partition p2 for values from (20) to (30);
>
> set enable_partitionwise_aggregate to on;
>
> select a, count(*) from pt group by a;
>
> HEAD: 47.734 ms
> With your patch: 32.400 ms
>
> This test is pretty simple, but I think this shows that the mentioned
> feature would be useful for cases where it takes time to get the
> results from remote queries.
>
> Cool!
Thanks. Since it starts all remote nodes before local ones, the
startup gain would be the shorter of the startup time of the fastest
remote and the time required for all local nodes. Plus remote
transfer gets asynchronous fetch gain.
regards.
--
Kyotaro Horiguchi
NTT Open Source Software Center
