On Tue, Feb 18, 2020 at 8:41 PM David Fetter <david@fetter.org> wrote:
>
> On Tue, Feb 18, 2020 at 06:51:29PM +0530, Amit Kapila wrote:
> > On Tue, Feb 18, 2020 at 5:59 PM Ants Aasma <ants@cybertec.at> wrote:
> > >
> > > On Tue, 18 Feb 2020 at 12:20, Amit Kapila <amit.kapila16@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > This is something similar to what I had also in mind for this idea. I
> > > > had thought of handing over complete chunk (64K or whatever we
> > > > decide). The one thing that slightly bothers me is that we will add
> > > > some additional overhead of copying to and from shared memory which
> > > > was earlier from local process memory. And, the tokenization (finding
> > > > line boundaries) would be serial. I think that tokenization should be
> > > > a small part of the overall work we do during the copy operation, but
> > > > will do some measurements to ascertain the same.
> > >
> > > I don't think any extra copying is needed.
> >
> > I am talking about access to shared memory instead of the process
> > local memory. I understand that an extra copy won't be required.
>
> Isn't accessing shared memory from different pieces of execution what
> threads were designed to do?
>
Sorry, but I don't understand what you mean by the above? We are
going to use background workers (which are processes) for parallel
workers. In general, it might not make a big difference in accessing
shared memory as compared to local memory especially because the cost
of other stuff in the copy is relatively higher. But still, it is a
point to consider.
--
With Regards,
Amit Kapila.
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
