Re: Introducing coarse grain parallelism by postgres_fdw. - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

Hello,

I noticed that postgresql_fdw can run in parallel by very small
change. The attached patch let scans by postgres_fdws on
different foreign servers run sumiltaneously. This seems a
convenient entry point to parallel execution.

For the testing configuration which the attched sql script makes,
it almost halves the response time because the remote queries
take far longer startup time than running time. The two foreign
tables fvs1, fvs2 and fvs1_2 are defined on the same table but
fvs1 and fvs1_2 are on the same foreign server pgs1 and fvs2 is
on the another foreign server pgs2.

=# EXPLAIN (ANALYZE on, COSTS off) SELECT a.a, a.b, b.c FROM fvs1 a join fvs1_2 b on (a.a = b.a);
                            QUERY PLAN
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Hash Join (actual time=12083.640..12083.657 rows=16 loops=1)
  Hash Cond: (a.a = b.a)
 ->  Foreign Scan on fvs1 a (actual time=6091.405..6091.407 rows=10 loops=1)
 ->  Hash (actual time=5992.212..5992.212 rows=10 loops=1)
     Buckets: 1024  Batches: 1  Memory Usage: 7kB
  ->  Foreign Scan on fvs1_2 b (actual time=5992.191..5992.198 rows=10 loops=1)
 Execution time: 12085.330 ms
(7 rows)

=# EXPLAIN (ANALYZE on, COSTS off) SELECT a.a, a.b, b.c FROM fvs1 a join fvs2 b on (a.a = b.a);
                            QUERY PLAN
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Hash Join (actual time=6325.004..6325.019 rows=16 loops=1)
  Hash Cond: (a.a = b.a)
 ->  Foreign Scan on fvs1 a (actual time=6324.910..6324.913 rows=10 loops=1)
 ->  Hash (actual time=0.073..0.073 rows=10 loops=1)
      Buckets: 1024  Batches: 1  Memory Usage: 7kB
  ->  Foreign Scan on fvs2 b (actual time=0.048..0.052 rows=10 loops=1)
 Execution time: 6327.708 ms
(7 rows)

In turn, pure local query is executed as below..

=# EXPLAIN (ANALYZE on, COSTS off) SELECT a.a, a.b, b.c FROM v a join v b on (a.a = b.a);
                                  QUERY PLAN
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 Hash Join (actual time=15757.915..15757.925 rows=16 loops=1)
   Hash Cond: (a.a = b.a)
   ->  Limit (actual time=7795.919..7795.922 rows=10 loops=1)
      ->  Sort (actual time=7795.915..7795.915 rows=10 loops=1)
         ->  Nested Loop (actual time=54.769..7795.618 rows=252 loops=1)
             ->  Seq Scan on t a (actual time=0.010..2.117 rows=5000 loops=1)
             ->  Materialize (actual time=0.000..0.358 rows=5000 loops=5000)
                ->  Seq Scan on t b_1 (actual time=0.004..2.829 rows=5000 ...
   ->  Hash (actual time=7961.969..7961.969 rows=10 loops=1)
      ->  Subquery Scan on b (actual time=7961.948..7961.952 rows=10 loops=1)
         ->  Limit (actual time=7961.946..7961.950 rows=10 loops=1)
             ->  Sort (actual time=7961.946..7961.948 rows=10 loops=1)
                ->  Nested Loop (actual time=53.518..7961.611 rows=252 loops=1)
                   ->  Seq Scan on t a_1 (actual time=0.004..2.247 rows=5000...
                   ->  Materialize (actual time=0.000..0.357 rows=5000...
                      ->  Seq Scan on t b_2 (actual time=0.001..1.565 rows=500..
 Execution time: 15758.629 ms
(26 rows)


I will try this way for the present.

Any opinions or suggestions?

- Is this a correct entry point?

- Parallel postgres_fdw is of course a intermediate shape. It
 should go toward more intrinsic form.

- Planner should be aware of parallelism. The first step seems to
 be doable since postgres_fdw can get correct startup and running
 costs. But they might should be calculated locally for loopback
 connections finally. Dedicated node would be needed.

- The far effective intercommunication means between backends
 including backend workers (which seems to be discussed in
 another thread) is needed and this could be the test bench for
 it.

- This patch is the minimal implement to get parallel scan
 available. A facility to exporting/importing execution trees may
 promise far flexible parallelism. Deparsing is usable to
 reconstruct partial query?

- The means for resource management, especially on number of
 backends is required. This could be done on foreign server in a
 simple form for the present. Finally this will be moved into
 intrinsic loopback connection manager?

- Any other points to consider?


regards,

--
Kyotaro Horiguchi
NTT Open Source Software Center

DROP SERVER IF EXISTS pgs1 CASCADE;
DROP SERVER IF EXISTS pgs2 CASCADE;
DROP VIEW IF EXISTS v CASCADE;
DROP TABLE IF EXISTS t CASCADE;

CREATE SERVER pgs1 FOREIGN DATA WRAPPER postgres_fdw OPTIONS (host '/tmp', dbname 'postgres', use_remote_estimate 'true');
CREATE SERVER pgs2 FOREIGN DATA WRAPPER postgres_fdw OPTIONS (host '/tmp', dbname 'postgres', use_remote_estimate 'true');

CREATE USER MAPPING FOR CURRENT_USER SERVER pgs1;
CREATE USER MAPPING FOR CURRENT_USER SERVER pgs2;

CREATE TABLE t (a int, b int, c text);
ALTER TABLE t ALTER COLUMN c SET STORAGE PLAIN;
INSERT INTO t (SELECT random() * 10000, random() * 10000, repeat('X', (random() * 1000)::int) FROM generate_series(0, 4999));
-- EXPLAIN ANALYZE SELECT * FROM t a, t b WHERE a.b + b.b = 1000 ORDER BY a.b LIMIT 10;
CREATE VIEW v AS SELECT a.a, a.b, a.c, b.a AS a2, b.b AS b2, b.c AS c2 FROM t a, t b WHERE a.b + b.b = 1000 ORDER BY a.b LIMIT 10;

CREATE FOREIGN TABLE fvs1 (a int, b int, c text, a2 int, b2 int, c2 text) SERVER pgs1 OPTIONS (table_name 'v');
CREATE FOREIGN TABLE fvs1_2 (a int, b int, c text, a2 int, b2 int, c2 text) SERVER pgs1 OPTIONS (table_name 'v');
CREATE FOREIGN TABLE fvs2 (a int, b int, c text, a2 int, b2 int, c2 text) SERVER pgs2 OPTIONS (table_name 'v');


EXPLAIN ANALYZE SELECT a.a, a.b, b.c FROM fvs1 a join fvs2 b on (a.a = b.a);
EXPLAIN ANALYZE SELECT a.a, a.b, b.c FROM fvs1 a join fvs1_2 b on (a.a = b.a);



--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers