Re: Parallel bitmap heap scan - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Dilip Kumar
Subject Re: Parallel bitmap heap scan
Date
Msg-id CAFiTN-u8PJWrmiOe4p6Eic2dOMy_qrKMsX5HUDxNHa5O2zCCpw@mail.gmail.com
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: Parallel bitmap heap scan  (Andres Freund <andres@anarazel.de>)
List pgsql-hackers
On Tue, Oct 18, 2016 at 1:45 AM, Andres Freund <andres@anarazel.de> wrote:
> I don't quite understand why the bitmap has to be parallel at all. As
> far as I understand your approach as described here, the only thing that
> needs to be shared are the iteration arrays.  Since they never need to
> be resized and such, it seems to make a lot more sense to just add an
> API to share those, instead of the whole underlying hash.

You are right that we only share iteration arrays. But only point is
that each entry of iteration array is just a pointer to hash entry.
So either we need to build hash in shared memory (my current approach)
or we need to copy each hash element at shared location (I think this
is going to be expensive).

Let me know if I am missing something..

-- 
Regards,
Dilip Kumar
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com



pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Dilip Kumar
Date:
Subject: Re: Parallel bitmap heap scan
Next
From: Amit Langote
Date:
Subject: Re: postgres_fdw : altering foreign table not invalidating prepare statement execution plan.