Re: Parallel Inserts in CREATE TABLE AS - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Amit Kapila
Subject Re: Parallel Inserts in CREATE TABLE AS
Date
Msg-id CAA4eK1JWwFZpDaH==U0=w4NKFLrrJXDv4S92+ocehLR=gB__qA@mail.gmail.com
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: Parallel Inserts in CREATE TABLE AS  (Bharath Rupireddy <bharath.rupireddyforpostgres@gmail.com>)
Responses RE: Parallel Inserts in CREATE TABLE AS
List pgsql-hackers
On Mon, Dec 7, 2020 at 7:04 PM Bharath Rupireddy
<bharath.rupireddyforpostgres@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> I'm not quite sure how to address this. Can we not allow the planner
> to consider that the select is for CTAS and check only after the
> planning is done for the Gather node and other checks?
>

IIUC, you are saying that we should not influence the cost of gather
node even when the insertion would be done by workers? I think that
should be our fallback option anyway but that might miss some paths to
be considered parallel where the cost becomes more due to
parallel_tuple_cost (aka tuple transfer cost). I think the idea is we
can avoid the tuple transfer cost only when Gather is the top node
because only at that time we can push insertion down, right? How about
if we have some way to detect the same before calling
generate_useful_gather_paths()? I think when we are calling
apply_scanjoin_target_to_paths() in grouping_planner(), if the
query_level is 1, it is for CTAS, and it doesn't have a chance to
create UPPER_REL (doesn't have grouping, order, limit, etc clause)
then we can probably assume that the Gather will be top_node. I am not
sure about this but I think it is worth exploring.

-- 
With Regards,
Amit Kapila.



pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Tomas Vondra
Date:
Subject: Re: Additional improvements to extended statistics
Next
From: Fujii Masao
Date:
Subject: Re: Blocking I/O, async I/O and io_uring